Rethinking Market Regulation in India: Critical Lessons from International Antitrust Enforcement

1. Introduction

India’s economic landscape has undergone significant transformation with rapid digitalisation, increasing consolidation across sectors, and the growing influence of multinational corporations. These developments have placed heightened responsibility on the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to ensure that market structures remain competitive, efficient, and conducive to consumer welfare.

At the same time, competition regulators globally such as the European Commission (EC), U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) are revisiting traditional antitrust principles and adopting bold enforcement strategies, particularly in digital markets. Their approaches offer critical lessons for India as it rethinks its competition enforcement methods and prepares to regulate complex, data-driven, and algorithmically mediated markets.

This paper examines international antitrust enforcement trends and draws insights for re-shaping India’s market regulation in the years ahead.

2. Why Rethinking Market Regulation Is Essential for India

2.1 Rise of Digital Platforms

Digital platforms wield immense power through:

• control of data,
• network effects,
• multi-sided markets,
• self-preferencing, and
• gatekeeping roles.

Traditional competition tools—focused on price, market shares, and substitutability—often fail to capture these complexities.

2.2 Cross-Sector Consolidation

Mergers in telecom, airlines, pharmaceutical, and infrastructure sectors have significantly altered market concentration patterns. India requires more refined merger assessment frameworks.

2.3 New Forms of Collusion

Algorithmic collusion, information-sharing through digital intermediaries, and platform-facilitated cartels complicate detection.

2.4 Globalisation

Modern markets are deeply interconnected; anti-competitive conduct in overseas markets can affect Indian consumers. India’s enforcement must align with global best practices.

3. Key International Antitrust Trends: What India Can Learn

3.1 EU’s Ex-Ante Regulation for Digital Gatekeepers

The EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) imposes proactive obligations on large platforms, including:

• prohibition of self-preferencing,
• mandatory interoperability,
• restrictions on data combining across services.

Lesson for India: India’s contemplation of a Digital Competition Act could draw from the DMA to regulate gatekeeper platforms through pre-emptive obligations rather than only ex-post enforcement.

3.2 United States’ Focus on Structural Remedies

The U.S. antitrust agencies are revisiting structural breakups, especially in Big Tech cases involving:

• Amazon,
• Google,
• Meta,
• Apple.

They emphasize:

• divestitures,
• limits on future acquisitions,
• splitting business units if needed.

Lesson for India: CCI can strengthen its structural remedy framework, especially when dealing with entrenched dominance in digital or network industries.

3.3 UK’s Market Investigation Regime

The CMA can initiate market investigations even without explicit complaints, leading to:

• market-wide remedies,
• conduct regulations,
• structural changes.

This flexibility allows proactive intervention.

Lesson for India: CCI’s sector inquiries could be expanded into deeper market investigation frameworks with mandatory compliance obligations where competition distortions are systemic.

3.4 International Experience with Algo-Collusion

Regulators across OECD nations are studying:

• algorithmically aligned pricing,
• AI-driven parallel behaviour,
• dark patterns causing exclusionary harm.

Lesson for India: CCI needs advanced forensic tools, algorithm audits, and clear guidance on liability for algorithm-driven coordination.

3.5 Merger Scrutiny of Killer Acquisitions

EU, UK, and US regulators increasingly challenge “killer acquisitions,” where dominant firms acquire small but innovative competitors to neutralize future competition.

Lesson for India: The Deal Value Threshold (DVT) introduced in India is a step forward, but India may need:

• more sophisticated future-competition tests,
• closer scrutiny of conglomerate mergers,
• enhanced rules for minority stake acquisitions.

4. India’s Current Framework: Strengths and Gaps

Strengths

• Robust merger control regime
• Effective leniency programme for cartels
• Growing sector studies by CCI
• Increasing penalties and compliance expectations
• Efficient review timelines compared to international regulators

Gaps

• Limited tools for ex-ante digital regulation
• Under-developed framework for algorithmic collusion
• Insufficient coordination with global regulators
• Lack of comprehensive control tests for minority acquisitions
• Need for a stronger institutional capacity in economics, data forensics, and AI investigation

5. Critical Lessons for India from Global Antitrust Enforcement

5.1 Adopt a Hybrid Ex-Ante + Ex-Post Digital Regulatory System

India should integrate:

• proactive code of conduct for gatekeepers,
• faster intervention in cases of abuse,
• mandatory data portability and interoperability.

5.2 Expand the Concept of “Control” in Mergers

International regulators treat smart veto rights, preferential voting structures, and board influence as “control.”
India can evolve clearer criteria for:

• negative control,
• material influence,
• creeping acquisitions by dominant firms.

5.3 Strengthen Cartel Detection Tools

Borrowing from OECD and European practices:

• enhanced cartel screening algorithms,
• procurement data analytics in public tenders,
• whistleblower protections,
• expanded dawn raids.

5.4 Build India’s Position on Data Monopolization

Inspired by global cases against Google and Meta, India can:

• recognise data accumulation as an entry barrier,
• regulate cross-use of data between services,
• impose restrictions on dark patterns.

5.5 Encourage Inter-Agency Collaboration

The EU and UK demonstrate close coordination among regulators overseeing:

• competition,
• data protection,
• consumer protection.

India needs similar synergy between:

• CCI,
• RBI,
• SEBI,
• TRAI,
• MeitY,
• Consumer Protection Authority.

5.6 Enhance Institutional Capacity

Global agencies maintain in-house expertise in:

• AI,
• behavioural economics,
• data science,
• digital forensics.

India must invest heavily in capacity-building to match the sophistication of modern markets.

6. Way Forward: Reimagining India’s Competition Landscape

To reshape India’s market regulation, the following steps are crucial:

6.1 Enact a Digital Markets Law

A specialized legislation similar to the EU DMA could prevent abuse by gatekeeper platforms.

6.2 Upgrade CCI’s Investigative Tools

Implement algorithm audits, digital forensic labs, and AI-driven detection systems.

6.3 Strengthen Merger Review

Introduce:

• dynamic competition tests,
• future-innovation impact analysis,
• tighter oversight of minority and serial acquisitions.

6.4 Expand Market Studies

Regular comprehensive market inquiries into:

• fintech,
• online retail,
• logistics,
• pharmaceutical pricing,
• telecom and broadband markets.

6.5 Embed Consumer Protection Principles

International regulators increasingly integrate consumer rights into competition enforcement. India can adopt similar approaches.

7. Conclusion

International antitrust enforcement provides a rich repository of insights for India as it rethinks market regulation. The global shift towards stricter digital regulation, proactive market interventions, structural remedies, and data-centric competition analysis highlights the direction in which India must evolve.

As India aspires to build a fair, innovative, and globally competitive economy, modernizing its competition framework is essential. Drawing from global best practices while tailoring regulations to its unique market realities will enable India to create a robust, future-ready competition regime capable of addressing the challenges of digital monopoly power, rapid consolidation, and AI-driven markets.