Sumit Kalyani

500086730, R760220209

Batch 2, Corporate Law

BBA LLB(Hons.), 4th Year

UPES, School Of Law

Is Google competing fairly?: Antitrust Enforcement in the Era of Digital

Dominance

Submitted to: Mr.Rafique Khan

Assistant Professor

Introduction

The development of digital markets has brought about significant transformations in the field of
competition law, indicating a paradigm transition with profound implications. The most significant of
these changes is the increasing significance given to data collecting and analysis in competition cases.
There is an abundance of data in the digital realm that is useful for defining market structures,
understanding competitive dynamics, and identifying instances of anti-competitive behavior like price
fixing and collusion. In addition, the exponential growth of platform companies—such as the giants of the
industry, Google and Facebook—has increased the scrutiny that competition law applies to their
operations. Because they control tremendous quantities of data and have a strong hold on the market,
these giants are now the focus of regulatory scrutiny.

The growth of digital markets has resulted in the emergence of innovative types of competition,
particularly network effects and multi-sided markets, which provide new challenges to traditional
competition law doctrine. This has sparked requests to reevaluate and modernize existing competition
rules in order to effectively address these emerging paradigms. However, navigating these new seas is
filled with complications, the most significant of which is determining market dominance in digital
markets. Unlike their traditional substitutes, digital markets frequently exhibit unusual entry barriers and
competitive dynamics, making conventional market power estimates inappropriate. 1

Consider the example of a corporation like Facebook or Google, which has a large user base and a data
edge. Despite the presence of other market participants, such firms may wield enormous market power,
highlighting the limitations of traditional measures for assessing dominance in digital ecosystems.

1 https://ccijournal.in/index.php/ccijoclp/article/view/54
Furthermore, the development of algorithms and real-time data analytics in digital markets has made
classic types of collusion and price fixing more complex and difficult to detect. Firms can use these
technology tools to rapidly monitor and respond to competitors' behaviors, blurring the distinction
between fair rivalry and anti-competitive behavior.

Platform companies may also engage in self-referencing techniques, which involve prioritizing their own
products or services over competitors'. This subtle kind of discrimination can have far-reaching
consequences for market competition, yet finding and minimizing it, raises difficult challenges to
competition authorities. Furthermore, the widespread usage of data by digital corporations raises worries
about possible discrimination against competitors. While legislative frameworks such as the European
Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) aim to protect against such tactics, enforcement
remains a recurring issue, necessitating stricter and specific rules.

Furthermore, the globalization of digital markets complicates competition law enforcement. Digital
businesses operate across borders, subject to varying competition laws and regulatory frameworks. This
fragmentation complicates enforcement efforts while also raising the possibility of contradicting
conclusions and regulatory arbitrage. To address this issue, competition authorities must improve their
international collaboration and coordination in order to provide a unified and harmonized strategy to
digital market regulation.2

In light of this, Google, one of the leading companies in the digital ecosystem, has been involved in
numerous antitrust lawsuits in a wide range of jurisdictions. Google has been under fire from regulatory
organizations in the US, the EU, India, and the US over claims that it abused its dominating market
position and engaged in anti-competitive activities. Among these are the record fines levied by the
European Union (EU) for anti-competitive activities involving its Android operating system and partiality
in search results. Nonetheless, it is crucial to emphasize that inquiries and penalties do not represent
definitive proof of misconduct, and Google has continuously denied these claims.

In light of these developments, this study aims to provide light on the numerous challenges that the digital
market ecosystem poses to antitrust agencies around the world. This article seeks to provide insights into
the growing dynamics of competition law in the digital age by diving into the distinguishing
characteristics of digital markets and the numerous competitions challenges they raise. With a particular
emphasis on Google, given the company's prominence and the wide range of competition law cases it has
faced across various jurisdictions, this paper seeks to unravel the intricate interplay between digital
market dynamics and the regulatory frameworks tasked with preserving market competition and
consumer welfare.

Characteristics of Digital Markets

The digital or online economy represents a new era in company operations, with a strong emphasis on
technology and reliance on data processing and communication infrastructure. This ecosystem is
distinguished by a relentless pursuit of innovation, with enterprises constantly striving to leverage

2 https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ciclpd57_en.pdf
technological breakthroughs to obtain a competitive advantage. One of the defining elements of this
economy is its extraordinarily low marginal costs, which are made possible by the scalability and
efficiency of digital technology. Furthermore, network effects play an important role, increasing the value
of platforms and services as more users join, resulting in a self-reinforcing cycle of growth. 3

In this dynamic landscape, many online platforms permit personal interaction with users, providing
businesses with outstanding opportunity to engage with their target audience. The digital economy,
whether through social media platforms like Facebook, content-sharing platforms like YouTube, or e-
commerce platforms like Amazon, has open up content creation and consumption, allowing individuals
and businesses alike to participate in the creation and distribution of digital content. This democratization
creates a culture of creativity and invention by reducing entrance barriers, allowing many voices and
perspectives to be heard.

The digital economy is built around three main business models: the over-the-top (OTT) model, in which
users pay directly for services; the advertising model, in which revenue is earned indirectly through
adverts; and the access model, in which content producers pay platforms to reach users. Each of these
models has unique complications and consequences for competitiveness, which influence the strategies
and tactics used by enterprises competing in this ecosystem.

The digital economy has changed traditional market dynamics, forcing brick-and-mortar stores to change
with the times or face extinction. Recognizing the need of having an online presence, many traditional
merchants have made substantial investments in digital infrastructure and e-commerce capabilities.
Furthermore, the development of digital technologies has resulted in the emergence of a new class of
specialists known as data scientists, who specialize in extracting insights from massive volumes of data to
inform strategic decisions.

In this age of rapid technology advancement and digital disruption, innovation has become a sign of
survival. Firms must constantly challenge themselves and their competitors in order to remain relevant in
an increasingly competitive environment. This has resulted in an increase of mergers and acquisitions,
with tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon purchasing smaller businesses to broaden their
portfolios and reinforce their market positions.

For example, Amazon started as an online retailer but has subsequently expanded into a variety of
industries, including cloud computing, streaming services, logistics, and even brick-and-mortar retail.
This diversification highlights digital enterprises' broad objectives, which strive to capture value across
many sectors and establish ecosystems in which customers may smoothly access a variety of products and
services.

Understanding the complexities of the digital economy and its impact on competition law is critical for
policymakers, regulators, and business owners. As the digital economy evolves and reshapes industries, it
is critical to modify regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to promote fair competition,
innovation, and consumer protection in this quickly changing environment.

3 https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2020)8/en/pdf
Two Sided Markets
In a two-sided market, there is a dynamic interdependence between two separate categories of consumers,
each of them depends on the other for their specific demands. Amazon is a prime example of such a
market, operating as a bridge connecting client's demand and supplier's supply. The platform's survival
depends on its capacity to maintain user involvement on both sides - customers looking for products and
producers providing them. This mutually beneficial relationship is similar to the operational framework of
companies such as Uber, in which the existence of passengers is required for the survival of cab service
providers, and vice versa.

The equilibrium of a two-sided market is fragile, and any imbalance has the potential to destroy the entire
ecosystem. For example, a decrease in cab passengers has a negative impact on cab service providers,
resulting in lower demand and revenue. Similarly, if the platform changes its pricing strategy in a way
that adversely affects one side - such as raising prices for customers while lowering prices for suppliers
by an equal amount - it indicates the presence of a two-sided market. As a result, platforms must develop
pricing methods that address the demands and interests of all players engaged.

The operational framework of two-sided market platforms typically consists of three main functions.
First, they act as middlemen, enabling trades and simplifying relationships between members of each
group. By lowering transactional conflicts, these platforms improve the efficiency of market exchanges,
encouraging greater involvement from both sides. Second, they play an important role in developing and
maintaining client bases, which increases the possibility of successful matches between members of both
groups. This not only increases user engagement, but also strengthens the platform's entire value
proposition. Finally, these platforms share resources and infrastructure, lowering barriers to entry and
service costs for both sets of users. This shared ecosystem promotes synergies and economies of scale,
which benefit all stakeholders involved.

In essence, two-sided market platforms provide a delicate balance of interests and incentives, in which the
success of one side depends on the prosperity of the other. These platforms add value to both consumers
and producers by increasing connectivity, user engagement, and sharing resources. However, reaching
this equilibrium necessitates a careful balance of pricing schemes, regulatory considerations, and user
experience optimization. As a result, understanding the dynamics of two-sided marketplaces is critical for
firms looking to succeed in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent digital world.

Economies of Scale
Economies of scale refer to the advantages gained when the size of a single operating unit that produces a
single good lead to a decrease in the cost of production per unit. This concept is widely recognized as a
fundamental principle in economics, as it enables businesses to achieve cost efficiencies through
increased production volumes. In the digitized market, the costs associated with producing goods and
services often entail a significant fixed cost component, accompanied by minimal variable costs. As
production volume escalates and the price per unit declines, the benefits of scale production become
evident, resulting in a reduction in the average cost per unit.
Consider the development of platforms that facilitate communication between taxi drivers and passengers,
as demonstrated by businesses such as Uber and Ola. These systems have relatively basic technological
costs, mostly related to the creation of mobile applications and the deployment of GPS and pricing
algorithms. Aside from these initial setup expenditures, the variable costs involved with running the
platform are negligible. In this arrangement, taxi drivers bear the majority of the expenditures and are
compensated based on the number of rides they provide. As a result, the platform's fixed expenses are
restricted to the initial setup phase, with variable costs remaining insignificant. 4

Economies of scale can take different forms, both internal and external to a factory, business, or industry.
These economies can be static or dynamic, and they might include activities such as marketing,
management, distribution, and research, along with production. The development of economies of scale
allows firms to optimize their cost structures, increase competitiveness, and generate long-term growth in
the digital marketplace.

Networks Effect
Market actors can obtain a competitive edge by appealing to customers with a variety of innovations,
resulting in a greater emphasis on the impact of networks. In a two-sided market in which consumers on
both sides benefit from an increase in users on the other side, network effects are critical. For example,
Uber app customers like a large number of drivers to reduce wait times and improve service quality.
Similarly, drivers gain from a high volume of reservations, which boosts earnings. The increased number
of users on one side of the platform benefits users on the other. These platforms are willing to absorb
losses in order to create a network effect that benefits everyone engaged.

Market participants rely extensively on algorithms for monitoring, forecasting, and developing business
models. Algorithms, which can provide exact data, preferences, and speedy decisions, are preferred over
human labor. Platforms use algorithms to produce suggestions based on user preferences, and they often
benefit from targeted advertising. An algorithm is essentially a preset sequence of simple actions that are
repeated on a set of objects. It is a series of instructions that must be followed in a precise order to finish a
task, which improves company assessments, and organizes competitive differentiation tools. Platform
operators generally utilize algorithms to estimate the future based on prior data, giving them a
competitive advantage and allowing them to set prices in response to market conditions, consumer
preferences, and purchasing power.

Pricing algorithms have improved supply-side efficiency for digital platform participants. Pricing
algorithms find the best pricing for each consumer through trial and error and by recognizing patterns in
massive amounts of data. For example, the price of a single product on Amazon might fluctuate by
roughly 240% in one day. Different consumers with different profiles may wind up paying different
prices for the same goods since pricing algorithms use a variety of computational criteria. These systems
can be complex, and customers may not completely grasp them. Pricing is influenced by factors such as
stock costs, seasonality, product availability, rival pricing changes, past product prices, and maximum
buy quantities. Pricing algorithms aim to optimize revenues through price differential.

4 https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2020)8/en/pdf
In the end, the employment of algorithms in digital platforms has transformed company processes,
allowing organizations to harness data-driven insights to increase competitiveness and profitability.
Furthermore, network effects play an important role in two-sided markets, where the proliferation of users
on one side helps users on the other, resulting in mutually beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders.

Deep Discounting
Many companies entering the digital market use a deep discounting approach, providing significant
discounts to customers. However, the ethical issues of this approach are frequently discussed. In 2016,
Reliance Jio entered the mobile network services industry, disrupting the market by offering its
consumers a year of free calls and internet. This move caused turbulence in the telecom industry, with
competitors such as Airtel filing lawsuits alleging unfair pricing and market saturation strategies. Despite
being a minor participant with only a 7% ownership in the major telecom market, Reliance Jio was
scrutinized by regulatory authorities. However, specialized organizations found that in a competitive
market with established competitors, providing tempting offers and schemes that encourage customers to
use one's own services is not necessarily anti-competitive.

To attract potential customers and capitalize on the network effect, several online players have used
aggressive techniques such as enforcing strict limitations, giving cashback incentives, and other
promotional strategies. The shift to digital markets has highlighted the importance of data, which has
emerged as the most valuable asset in these marketplaces. In this sense, data is comparable to currency,
with platforms striving for the most users in order to capture valuable data. Platforms prioritize extending
their user base to acquire data, which has a substantial impact on a player's market domination.

In a nutshell, while deep discounting and aggressive advertising strategies are common in the digital
market, the ethical implications of these behaviors remain controversial. Regulatory agencies recognize
the necessity for fresh players to use innovative techniques to establish themselves in competitive
markets, but they equally emphasize the importance of guaranteeing fair competition and protecting
consumers. As digital marketplaces expand, the importance of data and its impact on market dynamics
will remain critical in defining the strategies and behavior of enterprises operating within these
ecosystems.

Importance of Data in Digital Markets Big Data is often used in unjust ways.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was among the first
organizations to look into the implications of Big Data. Their analysis revealed two key characteristics of
Big Data: extensive data collections and the use of powerful computation to extract value quickly. As
technology advances, businesses can accumulate vast amounts of data.

The five Vs—volume, velocity, variety, verifiability, and value—help explain the characteristics of data.
Among these, 'Volume' is most important due to technological improvements that have increased data
processing and storage alternatives. Data has enormous 'value' since digital enterprises rely significantly
on it, and market domination is closely related to data competence. Furthermore, the 'diversity' of data
allows businesses to adapt advertising and improve products and services in response to consumer
demand. Verifiability ensures the accuracy of data, allowing for more informed decisions. "Velocity," or
the rate at which data is collected and processed, is critical for acquiring a competitive advantage in the
digital market.5

Data-derived information is extremely valuable in a variety of circumstances, frequently outweighing the

usefulness of cash as the platform's currency. Web-based solutions have simplified data collecting,
allowing for more cost-effective storage, analysis, and utilization. Search engines, social networking
platforms, and e-commerce websites collect unique data, which provides useful insights that are not
available elsewhere. Digital platform firms' investments in increasing free products highlight the
importance of data in fostering user engagement and market supremacy.

Exclusive access to data and data gathering methods has a substantial impact on market dynamics, with
factors such as economies of scale and network effects creating entry barriers for new companies. Digital
platforms such as Facebook constantly collect and process real-time data to personalize content to user
preferences, demonstrating the necessity of data agility in sustaining market supremacy. Google's huge
data holdings allow it to quickly adjust to consumer preferences, strengthening its position as the market
leader.

The dominance of large digital companies in terms of data control, such as Facebook, Google, Amazon,
and Apple, has raised worries about the impact on competition and democracy. Peter Norvig, Google's
head scientist, underlined the importance of data quantity in platform performance, emphasizing the
requirement for strong algorithms and relevant data. The massive data holdings of these platforms
interfere with government engagement in areas such as entry barriers and competition regulation.

Judicial Provision
The concept of dominating position in the Indian competition law framework has evolved dramatically
over time, particularly with the enactment of the Competition Act of 2002. Prior to this, the Monopolistic
and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 aimed to reduce economic power concentration. However,
with the implementation of the Competition Act, abuse of dominant position became clearly recognized
as a violation.

Section 4 of the Competition Act of 2002 prohibits any firm from abusing its dominating position. The
Act defines dominant position as a position of strength held by an enterprise in the relevant market that
allows it to operate independently of competitive pressures or to influence competitors, consumers, or the
relevant market in its favor. Abuse of dominant position includes a variety of behaviors such as imposing
unfair conditions or prices, limiting production or advancements in technology, denying market access,
imposing additional requirements, or using dominance in one market to enter or protect another.

The Act also clarifies terms like "dominant position" and "predatory price." Dominant position refers to
an enterprise's ability to function independently or influence the market in its favor. Predatory pricing

5 https://www.orfonline.org/research/competition-law-in-the-digital-space-a-study-of-exclusionary-
conduct-by-tech-conglomerates
refers to selling goods or services below their production costs in order to limit competition or eliminate
competitors.6

Section 4 forbids businesses from abusing their dominating position, which includes acts such as unfair
pricing, imposing entry obstacles, refusing to deal, tying agreements, leveraging, and predatory pricing.
The term "enterprise" has been widened to include groups of enterprises.

Identifying the appropriate market is critical for analyzing dominance and abuse. The relevant market
includes both the relevant product market and the relevant geographic market. The relevant product
market contains interchangeable or substitutable goods or services, whereas the relevant geographic
market includes locations with similar competitive conditions.

Judicial interpretation and the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) approach to abuse of dominant
position take into account a variety of elements, including zero pricing issues, free services, and cost
competition. Market share alone does not determine dominance; additional criteria must be considered.
Furthermore, a dominant player is commonly viewed as an independent entity in this context.

Overall, the Competition Act of 2002 seeks to prohibit the misuse of dominant positions and promote fair
competition in the Indian market, with the CCI playing an important role in implementing these rules.

Is Google competing fairly?

Google, like many other renowned companies, has come under intense scrutiny for its business practices
and potential antitrust issues, particularly in India. Assessing whether Google is engaging in fair
competition is a difficult topic that is dependent on individual settings and requires more information to
make a definitive decision. It is critical to recognize that Google has been entangled in several
investigations and legal battles, both locally and internationally, over its business practices and suspected
antitrust infractions.

As one of the world's largest and most prominent technological companies, Google has faced increased
scrutiny in recent years for its business practices and alleged antitrust violations. One of the key concerns
is Google's domination in the search engine sector. With Statista data which indicates that Google has
more than 90% of the global search engine market share, questions have arisen over whether Google is
using its market dominance to favor its own products and services above those of its competitors.
Allegations have surfaced claiming that Google favors its retail comparison service, Google retail, in
search results, potentially undermining competitor services.

Another topic of dispute is Google's dominance over the online advertising landscape. Google has
enormous impact in the internet advertising sector, with systems such as Google AdWords and Google
AdSense accounting for a sizable market share. Accusations have surfaced that Google uses its market
dominance to favor its own advertising goods over those of its competitors, hindering competition in the
internet advertising industry.

6 https://www.mondaq.com/india/hotels--hospitality/1286014/abuse-of-dominant-position-in-digital-era
Criticism has also been raised at Google's data collecting and utilization policies. Google collects large
amounts of user data through its numerous products and services, including search, email, and maps.
While this data helps to improve Google's offerings, some believe that it may give Google an unfair
advantage in the market, particularly in targeted advertising, disadvantaging competitors.

In response to these concerns, Google has faced a slew of probes and legal actions, both locally and
internationally. In India, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) undertook a comprehensive
investigation of Google's business operations, resulting in multiple orders and large fines. The European
Commission has also conducted repeated investigations into Google's operations, culminating in a record-
breaking $2.7 billion fine in 2017 for allegedly boosting its own comparison-shopping service in search
results.

Despite legal and regulatory objections, Google claims that it is following fair competition rules. The
corporation says that its dominance in the search engine market originates from the popularity of its
products and services, disputing allegations of using market power against competitors. Google reaffirms
its commitment to providing consumers with the most relevant and meaningful search results, regardless
of source.

Recent announcements and imminent orders from the CCI highlight the ongoing debate over Google's
allegations and regulatory organizations' viewpoints. Further investigation into these accusations and the
regulatory landscape is required to determine implications for Google's operations and the larger
competitive environment.

Case Law-

1) Mr. Umar Javeed and Others v. Google LLC

Facts
The case of Mr. Umar Javeed and Others v. Google LLC, filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition
Act of 2002, involves charges against Google LLC and Google India Private Limited. The informants,
Mr. Umar Javeed, Ms. Sukarma Thapar, and Mr. Aaqib Javeed, charged Google with violating Section 4
of the Act by allegedly exploiting its dominating position in the mobile operating system market. The
informants, who use Android-based devices, expressed worries about Google's operations, specifically the
distribution and licensing of the Android operating system.7

Google, which provides the Android operating system, allows manufacturers to alter and install their own
versions of Android, known as forked OSes. However, Google requires specific agreements, such as the
Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) and the Android Compatibility Commitment
(ACC), to gain access to Google Mobile Services (GMS), which include critical programs like Chrome,

7 https://competitioncooperation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Session-II-ANTITRUST-
ENFORCEMENT-IN-DIGITAL-MARKETS-CCI-experience-Ms-Jyoti-JINDGAR-CCI.pdf
Google Search, and the Play Store. The sources said that Google's bundling of these services and its
restrictions on manufacturers hampered competition and innovation in the mobile app sector.

Issues
Several key questions were raised in this case:
1. Whether requiring device manufacturers to pre-install the complete GMS as part of the MADA
constitutes a violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(d) of the Act.
2. Whether Google's actions limit the introduction of rival search apps, thereby maintaining its monopoly
on online search, in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
3. Whether Google's defense of its hold on online search through control of the Play Store violates
Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
4. Whether linking Google Chrome to the Play Store constitutes an abuse of market dominance under
Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.
5. Whether Google's integration of the Play Store and YouTube app violates Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.

Judgment
Following a comprehensive investigation, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found Google
guilty of anticompetitive behavior and levied a fine of $1,337.76 crores, as well as a cease-and-desist
order. The CCI also released other suggestions targeted at ensuring fair competition and addressing
Google's alleged abuses of market dominance.

Some of the key recommendations from the CCI include:

1. Allowing OEMs to place pre-installed programs on their devices without Google's constraints.

2. Do not require OEMs to pre-install Google's proprietary software in order to receive Play Store
licensing.

3. Prohibiting Google from blocking access to its Play Services APIs in order to disadvantage OEMs, app
developers, and competitors.

4. Prohibiting Google from entering into contracts with OEMs to exclusively market its search services or
providing incentives to OEMs.

5. Removing the anti-fragmentation obligations imposed on OEMs under current agreements.

6. Prohibiting Google from requiring OEMs to market devices based on forked versions of Android or
providing financial incentives.

7. Ensuring that customers can remove pre-installed programs from their devices without limitation.

These recommendations seek to establish a more competitive market environment while also addressing
Google's alleged anticompetitive actions in the mobile operating systems sector.
Conclusion
The decision in Mr. Umar Javeed and Others v. Google LLC emphasizes the significance of encouraging
fair competition and avoiding the misuse of market power. The CCI's proposals seek to correct the alleged
anticompetitive conduct discovered in Google's operations and provide a level playing field for all
competitors in the mobile operating systems market.

2) Matrimony.com Limited & Cuts Vs. Google LLC & Others

Facts
Google was accused of abusing its market dominance in India through a variety of activities, including
search bias, imposing unfair restrictions on users, and entering into exclusive agreements with partners.
Google was discovered to be dominating in two main markets in India: (a) online general web search
services, and (b) online search advertising services.

The Competition Commission highlighted that, despite the dynamic nature of high-technology sectors
where innovation is critical, Google's market share remained continuously high, showing that it had
advantages other than technical ones that protected its dominance. Google was accused of exploiting its
dominating position by employing techniques such as fixed ranking of Universal Results, prominent
display of Commercial Flight Unit, and imposing restrictions on publishers via negotiated search
intermediation agreements.

Issues
1) Whether Google's conduct constituted abuse of dominant position in violation of the Competition
Act of 2002.
2) Whether Google's tactics, such as fixed search result rankings, prominent placement of specific
services, and limitations on publishers, were unfair and restrictive.

Judgment
The Competition Commission found Google guilty of abusing its dominant position on several
counts.Prior to 2010, Google ranked Universal Results in a predefined manner rather than solely based on
relevancy, which was judged unfair to users and a breach of the Act's Section 4(2)(a)(i).

The prominent display of the Commercial Flight Unit, which included a link to Google's specialized
search alternatives, was deemed an unfair imposition on consumers, depriving them of additional options
and violating Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Prohibitions imposed on publishers through negotiated search
intermediation agreements were determined to be unjust since they limited partner choices and prohibited
them from using competing search engine services. This action violated Sections 4(2)(a), (e), and (c) of
the Act.
As a result, the Competition Commission directed Google to immediately stop enforcing restrictive
conditions in its negotiated direct search intermediation agreements with Indian partners. Furthermore,
Google was required to include a disclaimer in the commercial flight unit box, stating that the "search
flights'' link takes users to Google's Flights website rather than results compiled by any other third-party
service provider. Furthermore, Google has penalized Rs. 1.35 billion for its aggressive actions.

Explanation
The Competition Commission's decision emphasizes the importance of preventing the exploitation of
dominant positions in digital marketplaces in order to maintain fair competition and customer choice.
Google's practices, such as biased search rankings and restrictive agreements, were determined to
unreasonably restrict competition and harm customers' interests. The Commission's directive to Google to
stop enforcing restrictive provisions and give clear disclaimers is intended to improve openness and level
the playing field in the internet search industry. Furthermore, the imposition of a high monetary penalty
acts as a prevention to future anti-competitive activity by dominant market participants. Overall, the
decision emphasizes the importance of regulatory engagement in addressing abuses of dominance in
digital marketplaces while also upholding competitive principles.

3) (FHRAI) vs. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. (MMT), Ibibo Group Private Limited (Ibibo)
and Oravel Stays Private Limited (OYO)

4) Fast-Track Call Cabs and Anr. v. Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd

5) M/s Counfreedise vs. Timex Group India Limited

6) Jasper Infotech (Snapdeal) vs. Kaff Appliances

7) Mohit Manglani vs. Flipkart/Snapdeal and Others (Case No. 80 of 2014)

Conclusion
The introduction of digitization has revolutionized the landscape of today's economy, which is
characterized by dynamic market conditions and technical innovation reigns supreme. These innovations
have provided substantial benefits to humanity by overcoming geographical obstacles and promoting the
quick interchange of knowledge and goods. However, these improvements have brought a new set of
issues, particularly in the digital economy, where giant corporations wield significant power, needing
measures to prevent monopolistic tactics and maintain fair competition. Furthermore, users of social
media platforms confront dangers such as privacy violations, exposure to disinformation, and toxic
content, all of which can have a negative impact on mental health and societal well-being.

Regulatory and competition bodies around the world face challenges in efficiently supervising digital
marketplaces, which are complicated by the complexities of examining mergers and navigating
jurisprudential difficulties, particularly in emerging countries such as India. Traditional conceptions of
competition and regulation clash with the new business strategies of IT giants, necessitating the ongoing
creation of legal laws and processes to promote competition. The Competition Amendment Bill 2022
offers new measures to fight platform dominance, with the goal of strengthening regulatory authority and
mitigating digital platforms' growing influence.

However, issues remain in defining markets, recognizing dominant positions, and assessing the possibility
of anti-competitive behavior, which are worsened by the rapid rate of technical change and the worldwide
character of digital marketplaces. Despite these challenges, competition authorities must adapt and strictly
enforce laws to promote fair competition and preserve consumer welfare in the digital era.

Reference

1) Chadha, V. M. (2019). Abuse of Dominant Position. In V. M. Chadha (Ed.), Competition Act,

2002 Law and practice (p. 6.10). India: Bloomsbury Professional.

2) EU (2019). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online
advertising. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_1770.

3) Govindarajan, M. (2015). 'Relevant Market' Under Competition Act, 2002. Retrieved June 8,
2020, from
https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/ visitor/detail_article.asp? ArticleID=6256

4) Marginean, M. (2017). Positive and negative effects analysis in abuse of dominance. Retrieved
May 12, 2020, from
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/83750/ 1/MPRA_paper_83750.pdf

5) Partners, A. (2019, August 27). CCI Orders Investigation Into Abuse Of Dominance Allegations
Against Google - Anti-trust/Competition Law - India. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from
https://www.mondaq.com/india/antitrust-eu-competition-/840336/cci-ordersinvestigation -into-
abuse-of-dominance-allegations-against-google

6) Competition Act, 2002.

7) SCC Online for the Cases.