Why antitrust regulations are pertinent

The Hindu

4 days ago

While arguing for the Sherman Act, Senator John Sherman said in 1890, 'If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.' The law would eventually mark the beginning of antitrust regulation in the United States, while also laying the groundwork for similar statutes preserving market competition worldwide, including in India.
Sherman's idea of what constitutes a 'necessity of life' has evolved since then. Technology is reshaping societies and markets — it now shapes the production, transportation, and sale of most goods and services, leading to the rise of what we now term the global 'digital economy'. India is a significant player, with its domestic digital economy contributing 11.74% to its GDP (2022-23). This success has partially been driven by technology start-ups, which rose from just 2,000 in 2014 to over 31,000 in 2023. The government recognises their potential and leans on them to build a $35 trillion 'Viksit Bharat' by 2047.
Yet Sherman's concern about a few players dominating economies still applies. In Digital India, the kings are located in foreign waters, dictating selective terms to home-grown start-ups building the country's digital future. As a result, the ability of Indian start-ups to scale is often stunted. While these global firms connect societies, they also wield immense monopolistic power. A recent case by a leading Indian online gaming company against Google, filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI), highlights the risks posed by such dominance.
On start-ups and monopolies
Discriminatory practices by gatekeepers in the digital economy harm India's economy, business environment, and consumers.
Google, for example, dominates distribution and discovery of digital services. With Android holding about 95% of the of the mobile operating system market share in India, it is nearly impossible for consumers to discover new online businesses without the latter hawking their services on Google's superior search engine, app store, or online advertising ecosystem. This dominance has led to discriminatory outcomes for Indian start-ups. For example, high commissions levied by Google on transactions taking place within its payments ecosystem have dampened the revenues of start-ups using these services. These issues have led domestic antitrust regulators to crack down on the tech giant, preventing Google from restricting app developers from using third-party payment systems or from communicating with their users to promote their apps.
The gaming start-up's CCI filing is an addition to this long list of concerns with Google's anticompetitive behaviour in India. In its complaint, the gaming industry leader alleged that Google abused its dominant position via a discriminatory Real Money Gaming (RMG) Pilot Program operated through the Play Store, and restrictive advertising policies. Google's Pilot Program, launched in September 2022, selectively permitted two specific formats of RMG on the Play Store — Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and rummy — limiting market access for other formats of RMG, such as the casual games offered by the gaming company. While Google discontinued similar pilots in Mexico and Brazil in June 2024, its Indian iteration continues to date, offering DFS and rummy operators relatively unfettered access. For example, the complaint notes that a DFS operator with 90% of the market share acquired 150 million users over 16 years, but upon joining the Pilot, it added another 55 million users in just one year. Google similarly amended its advertising policies following the launch of the Pilot, limiting gaming advertisements to DFS and rummy operators, which earlier allowed advertisements by all games of skill. Before these amendments, the online gaming leader claimed that 68.21% of its app downloads were derived from Google's ad program. Now, they have stopped — a deep cut for an Indian start-up with proven global credibility and scale. CCI, the forward-looking and progressive digital regulator, has began an investigation into these concerns.
Costs to India
Such market distortions carry serious economic consequences, compromising India's ability to reach its digital economy ambitions. Most importantly, lack of competition leads to 'reductions in quality and consumer choice[s]', and excessive reliance on few powerful players. Net-net, everyone loses, except the gatekeepers.
India cannot afford such a loss in innovation — and nor can its people, who will ultimately benefit from competitive growth, driven by ambitious start-ups. Sherman's homeland offers some insight into what the future holds for markets where the antitrust issue is not addressed head-on. Antitrust scholars suggest that rising monopolisation across American industries has increased the cost of doing business for growing businesses, leading to a dramatic decrease in Initial Public Offerings. The economic consequences of such lopsided markets are too severe for India to bear.
Ultimately, global tech giants play a critical role in powering these new-age businesses. What the future requires is recognition from Indian adjudicators that avenues for distribution and monetisation must be democratised, without gatekeeping, for domestic start-ups to thrive. The gaming industry leader's case carries on Sherman's legacy — it is one step towards a fairer field for everyone.
Alwyn Didar Singh, Former Secretary to the Government of India and former Secretary General, FICCI