Editorial 1: The challenge of policing digital giants

Context

The Meta case underscores the importance of adopting a more proactive and future-oriented approach to competition law.

Introduction

On November 18, 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued a significant ruling, imposing a ₹213.14 crore fine on Meta and enforcing several behavioral restrictions. One key measure was a five-year ban on sharing WhatsApp user data with other Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram for advertising purposes. In response, Meta appealed the decision to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). On January 23, 2025, the NCLAT granted a stay on both the data-sharing ban and the penalty, provided that Meta deposits 50% of the total fine.

CCI’s Ruling on WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy Update

• The Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy update violated competition laws.
• It abused its dominant position in India’s OTT messaging services and online display advertising markets.
• The update forced users to consent to expanded data-sharing across all Meta platforms.
• Users had to accept the policy on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, giving them no choice.
• Meta’s access to extensive user data gave it a competitive advantage in digital advertising.
• The policy was seen as a move to strengthen WhatsApp’s market power, harming competition.
• It restricted other messaging platforms from competing on a level playing field.

The era of data

Key Aspect
Data as the New Oil	In the digital economy, data has become as valuable as oil, but unlike oil, it can be collected, analyzed, and reused indefinitely.
Role of Data in Digital Markets	Data is essential for establishing and maintaining dominance in digital markets due to its ability to provide competitive advantages.
Meta’s Data-Driven Dominance	Meta collects vast amounts of user data to refine algorithms, enable hyper-targeted advertising, and create personalized experiences, keeping users within its ecosystem.
Data-Driven Network Effects	More users generate more data, increasing a platform’s value and making it harder for competitors to enter the market.
CCI’s Action Against Google	In 2022, Google was fined ₹1,337.76 crore for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets, including Android OS, app stores, web browsers, online video platforms, and search services in India.
Reason for Google’s Penalty	Google forced Android device manufacturers to pre-install its apps, restricting competition.
NCLAT’s Decision	In 2023, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the penalty imposed on Google.

 

Global actions

• Widespread Concerns: Meta’s market dominance is a global issue, with regulators worldwide addressing its competitive practices.
• U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny: The Majority Staff Report on ‘Competition in Digital Markets’ (U.S. Subcommittee on Antitrust) called for urgent reforms in antitrust laws to curb the market power of tech giants.
  • Meta faces antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, accused of creating barriers for competitors.
  • Google was found guilty of monopolistic practices in 2024 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for exclusive agreements in search and advertising markets.
• Regulatory Actions in Other Countries: Australia has implemented measures to check the dominance of digital platforms.
  • Europe’s Facebook-Germany Case: The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) ruled that Meta violated EU competition laws and GDPR by combining user data from different sources without consent, harming both privacy and competition.
  • The EU is investigating Meta’s ad-supported subscription model, while Google has been fined over €8 billion for anti-competitive practices in mobile OS and app markets.
• Parallels with Past Antitrust Cases: The AT&T antitrust ruling led to the breakup of its monopoly by forcing the divestiture of 22 operating companies.
  • Microsoft’s antitrust case resulted in regulatory oversight, ensuring API access for third-party developersand more flexibility for PC manufacturers.
• The Bigger Picture: CCI’s orders against Google and Meta are part of broader efforts to regulate the overwhelming dominance of tech giants in advertising, e-commerce, and smartphone services.
  • While these rulings mark progress, ongoing disputes across jurisdictions suggest they may be temporary measures rather than long-term solutions for regulating digital monopolies.

On India’s laws

• Current Gaps in the Competition Act, 2002: The Competition Act, 2002 lacks specific provisions to regulate data-driven monopolies.
  • Traditional laws focus on price-based dominance, whereas digital markets see dominance through data aggregation.
• Proposed Amendments to Address Data Monopolization: Introduce “data monopolization” as a key factor in assessing market dominance.
  • Redefine “market power” and “dominant position” to reflect data-driven competition.
  • Implement global best practices, such as:
    • Mandating interoperability and data-sharing agreements.
    • Separating integrated services to prevent monopolistic control.
  • These steps would help curb market concentration, support smaller competitors, and maintain innovation incentives.
• Role of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Regulates data collection, consent, and usage, complementing competition law.
  • However, lack of coordination between the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Data Protection Board of India limits effectiveness in handling overlapping concerns.
• Global Lessons & Best Practices:
  • India can learn from the EU’s approach, where competition law integrates with:
    • The Digital Markets Act (DMA) to regulate big tech companies.
    • General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to ensure data privacy and fair competition.
• Need for Regulatory Evolution: To fully harness digital transformation, India must modernize its regulatory framework.
  • The Economic Survey 2024-25 highlights India’s rapid digital growth and the rising importance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the economy.
  • As tech giants expand influence, regulations must not only keep pace but also anticipate future challenges.

Conclusion

While the Meta case serves as a pivotal moment in India’s efforts to regulate digital markets and address the complexities of data-driven monopolies, it also highlights the need for a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach to competition law.

Editorial 2: The assault on multilateralism and international law

Context

The U.S. acting alone is a big change and might lead to pushback from other countries, but it also gives non-Western nations a chance to become leaders.

 

Introduction

The idea of ‘America First’ is guiding U.S. President Donald Trump’s government, bringing big changes to global cooperation and international rules. Since starting his second term, the U.S. has been pulling out of major global groups and agreements it once helped create. This includes plans to leave the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Paris Climate Agreement, as well as sanctions on the International Criminal Court. Recently, a Republican senator introduced a law to let the U.S. completely leave the United Nations. These actions could seriously affect global teamwork and respect for international law.

Back to political and economic isolationism

Key Issue	Details	Impact
DEFUND Act and the UN	The proposed law would cut U.S. ties with the UN, ending financial contributions and participation in peacekeeping.	Weakens the UN, making it harder to maintain global cooperation and human rights efforts.
Loss of UN Officials’ Immunity	The Act would remove legal protections for UN officials working in the U.S.	Makes it harder for the UN to function effectively.
Threat to Multilateral Cooperation	These actions challenge international teamwork and a rules-based global order.	Could lead to instability and weaken global agreements.
Sanctions on ICC	A U.S. executive order punishes the ICC, which prosecutes crimes like genocide and war crimes.	Undermines accountability for human rights violations and weakens global justice efforts.
Contradiction with U.S. History	The U.S. once supported global justice, including the Nuremberg Trials after WWII.	Moving away from such efforts weakens its leadership in international law.
Accusations Against ICC	The U.S. claims the ICC unfairly targets it and Israel.	This damages the ICC’s credibility and weakens its role in punishing serious crimes.

Trade troubles

Key Issue	Details	Impact
Economic Nationalism	The Trump administration has imposed strong tariffs, claiming to protect American security.	Increases global trade tensions and economic uncertainty.
Historical Parallel	Similar trade protectionism in the 1930s (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) worsened the global economy and contributed to WWII.	Shows the dangers of isolationist trade policies.
Creation of Global Trade Rules	After WWII, nations created the GATT (later WTO) to ensure fair global trade.	Helped prevent economic conflicts and promoted cooperation.
WTO Crisis	The U.S. is blocking appointments to the WTO’s dispute resolution body and may leave the organization.	Weakens global trade rules and threatens the WTO’s future.

Action and reaction

• Economic Nationalism: The Trump administration has introduced strong tariffs, claiming they protect American security.
  • Impact: Increases global trade tensions and economic uncertainty.
• Historical Parallel: Similar trade protectionism in the 1930s (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act) harmed the global economy and contributed to WWII.
  • Impact: Highlights the risks of isolationist trade policies.
• Creation of Global Trade Rules: After WWII, countries established the GATT (later WTO) to promote fair trade and prevent conflicts.
  • Impact: Encouraged international cooperation and economic stability.
• WTO Crisis: The U.S. is blocking appointments to the WTO’s dispute resolution body and may withdraw from the organization.
  • Impact: Weakens global trade rules and threatens the future of the WTO.

Conclusion

India has consistently advocated for multilateralism and adherence to international law. During the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in February 2025 in Johannesburg, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reaffirmed the need for an inclusive and collaborative approach to addressing global challenges. He emphasized the importance of prioritizing international law and peaceful conflict resolution. Additionally, he highlighted this as a crucial opportunity to push for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms, a long-standing demand of India, reinforcing the country’s commitment to a more equitable and cooperative global order.