white black legal international law journal ISSN: 2581-8503

Peer-Reviewed Journal | Indexed at Manupatra, HeinOnline, Google Scholar & ROAD









The rapid growth of e-commerce and fintech markets in India has led to the emergence of new business models and market structures that present unique challenges for competition law. This study aims to analyze the impact of competition law on e-commerce and fintech markets in India, with a specific focus on how it applies to traditional and digital market structures. Using a comparative analysis approach, this study examines the competition law landscape in India, reviews relevant laws and regulations, and considers case law and enforcement actions related to e-commerce and fintech. The study also compares and contrasts traditional market structures with digital market structures to identify unique challenges and opportunities presented by digital markets.  The study would involve a review of relevant competition laws, regulations, and guidelines in India, as well as an analysis of case law and enforcement actions related to e-commerce and fintech. The research also reviews international best practices, such as the European Union's approach to regulating digital markets, and considers how they could be adapted to the Indian context. The study concludes with recommendations for how competition law can effectively address the challenges and opportunities presented by e-commerce and fintech markets in India.


Keywords: Competition law, E-commerce, Fintech, Traditional market structures and Digital market structures






Competition is inevitable in a market system. Sectors and businesses require a competitive environment to thrive, improve and survive in the market. Such regulation which provides fair means of competition is provided by Competition Commission of India (CCI).Due to increased internet availability and relaxed FDI rules that allowed large multinational businesses to enter the Indian market, the e-commerce industry is currently the one with the fastest growing economy. Easy accessibility and huge awareness, the needs of the consumer are rising constantly. Moreover, the services and quality served by ecommerce websites has attracted a huge audience for running a smooth business. The expansion of the internet and smartphone use has boost the ecommerce sector to a much higher extent. Despite being in a miserable situation, the traditional retailers might not disappear anytime soon. Ironically, though, as small businesses gain access to a worldwide market, e-commerce is assisting them in surviving. Because they offer a human touch and allow customers to feel and touch the products, retail stores will continue to have a competitive advantage. Both physical and online retailers can benefit greatly from the marketing options they offer. E-commerce offers a convenient platform for shopping and browsing in addition to time and money savings. The widespread deep discounts have a propensity to drive prices below the cost levels, thus the CCI anticipated the necessity to explicitly state the policies and schemes of discounting included. While from the standpoint of the consumer, it is essential to use certain moderate discounting tactics to entice the demand, as they cannot be fully eliminated. As a result, CCI has steadfastly worked to create a case-by-case review framework for the deep counting process.


Competition Law Landscape in India

The Competition Act of 2002 has replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practises Act of 1969, which is no longer in effect. The MRTP Commission has also been replaced with the Competition Commission of India. In his 2009 Budget speech, Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha stated that the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practises Act (MRTP Act) had become obsolete in several areas due to changes in the global economy that affected competition rules. He suggested that it was time to move away from controlling monopolies and instead promote competition. Therefore, the government planned to create a committee to investigate these issues and suggest a modern competition law that was suitable for India's conditions.


The Competition Act, 2002 is the governing law for Competition in India. It came into effect on May 20, 2009. The Competition Act is based on three legal pillars: the National Competition Policy (NCP), the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). This regulation was passed primarily to ensure that market competition functions as intended and that consumers have access to a wider range of goods at fair prices. Additionally, it aims to protect consumers' economic interests in MERS and stop unfair business practises.


Electronic commerce or e-commerce and digital marketing have experienced exponential growth in recent years, it is a fact. The expansion of the internet and smartphone use has driven this industry's rise. The world's greatest annual growth rate of 51% is anticipated for the Indian e-commerce sector, with revenues rising 39 billion USD in 2017 to 200 billion USD in 2026. E-commerce is the act of purchasing or selling goods online or offering services to customers. In the world of e-commerce, there are numerous ways that difficulties with competition law might show up. Both native and foreign companies operate in the Indian e-commerce market. Therefore, any merger or amalgamation of e-commerce firms—whether in India or overseas—that may have an effect in India is still subject to Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, which requires notification. (Act).An analysis of the Indian market for electronic commerce was undertaken by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and released its findings in a report titled "Market Study on E-Commerce in India" on August 1, 2020. The following was listed as the study's goal in the report:


…the purpose of the study was to better understand the functioning of e-commerce in India and its implications for markets and competition”


The Market Study is the most significant and up-to-date source that will likely direct the development of India's e-commerce laws. Due to its thoroughness and depth, the Market Study gave the CCI a vital insight into the nation's contemporary e-commerce environment.  In general, the two major types of competition concerns in e-commerce are infrastructure and transactional. The CCI has determined five main areas in its study that will be closely examined in the future with regard to all e-commerce platforms, and they are as follows:

  1. Platform Neutrality: When internet platforms act as both a marketplace and a competitor in that marketplace, it raises the issue of platform neutrality. This is because these platforms become vertically integrated when they are involved in the products that are being traded on their platform. This can happen through various means such as creating and selling their own private labels, having an indirect or direct interest in retail, or managing their own cloud kitchen brands. This vertical integration could create an incentive for the platform's own or related firms to increase their market position compared to their competitors by providing preferential treatment on the platform.


  1. Platform-to-Business Contract Terms: The actions of the major platforms in unilaterally rewriting and imposing unfair contract terms have led to increasing tension and distrust in interactions between the platforms and businesses. This kind of environment is not ideal for realizing the full potential of digital commerce, which could bring numerous benefits to consumers, businesses, and the economy. In order to establish trust and a sustainable relationship with the businesses that use their platforms, the platforms could implement measures to govern various aspects, such as negotiating a framework for basic contract terms, establishing a discount policy, outlining penalties, and implementing conflict resolution mechanisms to protect the interests of all parties involved.


  1. Platform Parity Clauses: A recent antitrust study has raised concerns about the impact of price parity agreements on competition. Firstly, such restrictions may reduce the incentives for existing platforms to compete on commission rates. Secondly, new platforms trying to enter a concentrated and oligopolistic market may offer lower commission rates to attract service providers. However, parity clauses imposed by established platforms may prevent these new low-cost platforms from gaining a foothold. Thirdly, these clauses may discourage any divergence from a consensus rate of commission, thereby helping to maintain any existing coordination or tacit agreement between platforms.


  1. Exclusive Agreements: Exclusive deals may not always have a negative impact on competition. However, when used as a tactic to prevent rivals from competing or gaining entry to a market, they can pose potential competition concerns. These concerns are particularly relevant in cases where there is limited competition in either the platform or merchant/service provider market. By entering into exclusive agreements, a dominant platform may be able to stifle competition, leading to higher costs, fewer product options, and decreased market efficiency. Such exclusive contracts may also impose significant additional costs on other platforms, which could be used to encourage companies and service providers to terminate their exclusivity arrangements with the dominant platform.


  1. Deep Discounts: Discounts are a means of reducing costs and can take various forms. In the digital platform industry, discounts are often used to attract customers and build user networks. However, discounts can also negatively impact competition when used by dominant businesses as an exclusionary tactic. Sellers and service providers have expressed concerns about discounts offered by marketplace platforms for three reasons: first, they may be discriminatory; second, platforms' superior negotiating position may lead to discounts being imposed on service providers, harming their business models; third, discounts can drive prices below cost in certain product categories.


Legal Framework for Competition Law in E-Commerce

  1. Concerns under Section 3(4) of the Act: Vertical restraints

The CCI stated in Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh v. Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd[4] . that both Amazon and Flipkart were using a marketplace-based model of e-commerce and that any vertical agreements between platforms and sellers could be evaluated under Section 3(4). The CCI identified four purported practices in this regard, including the exclusive release of mobile phones, having "preferred" merchants on the marketplaces, extreme discounting, and preferential listing/promotion of private labels. In light of the aforementioned claims made against Amazon and Flipkart, the CCI came to the conclusion that an ecosystem might be developed in India through exclusive launches, special treatment for a select group of vendors, and discounted practices that could have a significant adverse effect on competition (AAEC). In accordance with Section 26(1) of the Act, the CCI subsequently issued an order asking the DG to launch an investigation into Amazon and Flipkart. One of the first significant cases to shed light on unique online vertical constraints like preferential listing and deep discounting policy is this one.


  1. Concerns under Section 4 of the Act: Abuse of Dominance

Section 4(1) of the Competition Act states that it is forbidden for any enterprise or group to misuse their dominant position. The Act does not prohibit dominance in itself, but rather its abuse. The term 'dominant position' is used instead of 'dominance'. This is because dominance is not inherently negative. The abuse of dominance occurs when an enterprise or a group of enterprises exploits or excludes others by using their dominant position in the relevant market. For instance, to draw customers and broaden the customer base, electronic shopping platforms probably offer the fewest configurations and thresholds. As the actual purchase is typically accomplished through online platforms due to the fact that they provide antiviral more cheap costs, such displays of the online players have also provoked the ire of the traditional offline stores. In the case of Fast Track Call Cab Pvt. Ltd. v. ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.[5] the Competition Commission of India provided clarity on the definition of a "Dominant Entity." The informers, who were running radio taxi services, alleged that Ola Cabs had engaged in predatory pricing by offering substantial discounts, thereby violating Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Indian Competition Law, 2002. However, the Court stated that a participant in the market must maintain its market share for a reasonable period of time to be considered dominant. As new market participants like Uber and Taxi for Sure had entered the market and decreased Ola Cabs' market share, it could not be considered a monopoly. Additionally, the Court noted that a new entrant with an innovative concept or technology that challenges the status quo cannot always be deemed dominant, even if it has a large customer base. It is important to note that abuse can only be claimed if a player holds a dominant position in the market.


The provisions of Section 4 of the Act were taken into consideration by the Court, which concluded that they only applied to organizations or groups with a dominant position. Due to the presence of numerous dominant market participants (like Ola or Uber), no organization in the current scenario would be able to act independently of the others. In its ruling the court significantly reduced the definition of a dominant firm in the Indian market, which has defined the practice of predatory pricing in that country. The Court has explicitly rejected designating a person or thing as a "Dominant Entity" solely because they have an original idea or cutting-edge technological advancement.


The rise of the digital economy has changed the dynamic. This is the most interesting time to be in fintech and competition law. -—DANIEL SCHWARZ Senior Associate, London

FinTech refers to technology-driven startups that are challenging existing financial players and conventional banking practises.The FSB defines fintech as “technologically enabled financial innovation that could result in new business models, applications, processes or products with an associated material effect on financial markets and institutions and the provision of financial services[6] The FinTech revolution is one of the biggest revolutions the financial sector has ever experienced.  It is the creative application of technology to the planning and provision of financial services to both banked and unbanked groups. With the help of FinTech start-ups and BigTech companies, new banking models are emerging across a number of financial services, including payments, credit reporting, lending and factoring, insurance, and asset management, among others. In a highly regulated financial sector, the government is obviously the primary factor that determines whether fintech is successful or not. The Indian government is actively promoting and backing efforts to help the country's economy achieve its goals of becoming a robust fintech ecosystem and a cashless digital economy.  The RBI has played a significant role in fostering the growth of the fintech industry and promoting a cautious stance in response to worries about consumer protection and law enforcement. Due to the absence of a uniform set of laws governing the sector, India's FinTech regulatory structure is fragmented. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) are the principal regulatory bodies tasked with regulating this sector.


The main regulations that apply to Indian fintech enterprises are:

  1. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act)
  1. The Companies Act, 2013
  2. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
  3. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
  4. The Information Technology Act, 2000
  5. The Reserve Bank of India Rules
  6. The Insurance Act, 1938
  7. The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999


The Indian government has established a special fund worth USD 1.5 billion as part of the "Startup in India" funding support programme. It is envisaged that this cash will be divided among several industries, including but not limited to Fintech. The Indian government has also introduced a number of tax and surcharge relief programs, such as the three-year income tax exemption for new businesses, the creation of the National Credit Guarantee Trust Company to offer credit guarantee mechanisms via debt financing for new businesses, and the exclusion of capital gain tax for investments in unlisted companies for a period longer than 24 months.


Case Study: PayTM, which began as a financial technology startup, has now become the biggest payment company in India

In 2010, Paytm was launched as a platform for online mobile recharge services, and it gradually evolved into an e-commerce marketplace by 2014. The company expanded its services further by offering bus tickets in 2015, followed by movie tickets and flight tickets in 2016. Paytm initially began as a value-added service for telecom operators and rapidly gained a substantial customer base, prompting Vijay Shekar Sharma to launch it as an online prepaid mobile recharge portal. By 2013-14, it had become a semi-closed wallet, and the company diversified into multiple business ventures, including e-commerce and integrating wallets with other commerce applications online and on mobile. Paytm has capitalized on the increasing trend of mobile usage in India and currently boasts over 100 million wallets, facilitating over 75 million transactions per month.


Paytm is working to improve its O2O (online-to-offline and offline-to-online) business strategy in an effort to become India's first professional e-commerce company. O2O refers to the ability for customers to browse and purchase across channels. For instance, a customer could look for a specific product online and buy it at the nearby brick-and-mortar store, and vice versa. For the purpose of enhancing their O2O strategy, it has bought the hyperlocal service marketplace Near.in and invested in delivery-enabling startups Little and Jugnoo, which aggregates auto-rickshaw services online. Paytm places a strong emphasis on data science and not just O2O. They leverage data to detect Stock Keeping Units to improve profitability and combat credit card fraud. The company has also received a payment bank license from the Reserve Bank of India, allowing them to offer checking and savings accounts. Paytm aims to use this license to facilitate micro-transactions through their wallet and generate revenue by cross-selling financial products. The company has garnered approximately $740 million in total funding, with Alibaba as their primary investor owning a significant 25% stake.


In India, there are many domestic and international competitors in the payments and wallets industry, making it a very competitive market. However, with cash still accounting for 80% of transactions, cost-effective digital payment solutions, particularly in the micro-transaction services area, have a high chance of expanding.


Case study: ‘Halla bol’ campaign against Amazon and Walmart

in reference to complaints of dominance and non-

competitive business practices

The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) wrote to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) prior to a national campaign against Amazon and Walmart-backed Flipkart, accusing them of "manipulating the market and slowing down the process of turning rules into law", thereby "killing the competition and violating the rules as stated in Press Note 2 of the FDI policy, 2018 of the Government of India", which are the assisting factor for their dominance in e-commerce business of India demanding immediate steps for aggressive investigation into the business model of both Amazon and Flipkart in reference to complaints of dominance and non-competitive business practices.


CAIT National President BC Bhartia and Praveen Khandelwal said[7],

The manner in which Amazon has deeply indulged in intentional violation of rules and laws pertaining to the e-commerce sector of the country and keeping high scale of rigging is very serious and needs to be condemned in its strongest sense. It has painted India as a banana republic and has termed the Indian laws very weak and can be managed either way for its own gains, a matter which needs utmost and urgent attention. It is a fact that responsible authorities proved to be an utter failure and did not take any action despite lodging several complaints.


Competition Law and Digital Markets

The emergence of the digital economy or internet economy marks the beginning of the third industrial revolution. This has created both opportunities and obstacles. As a result, the regulatory systems, including competition law, need to adapt to modern times. The way digital markets operate differs significantly from traditional markets, which makes it increasingly difficult for competition authorities worldwide to regulate them effectively.


A study by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, which was released in June 2022, also urged ex-ante regulation of digital markets and emphasised the necessity of promptly amending the Competition Act, 2002, as suggested by the Competition Law Review Committee. “In view of the growing number of cases and complexity in the digital sector and the increasing need for data and technology skills, we are now planning to set up a dedicated Digital Markets Unit within CCI,” said Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson, Competition Commission of India (CCI).


In Matrimony v. Google also known as Google Search case[8], the majority ruling of the CCI made it clear that it was acting with "forbearance" by not meddling with Google's search algorithm because it did not want to hinder innovation. When analysing dominance, the CCI did the right thing by taking Google's huge market shares into account alongside entry hurdles, economies of scale, network effects, and the lack of potent rivals. However, not all orders involving digital markets have used this strategy.


The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2022 contains several revisions that are specifically targeted at these digital markets; yet, the Act controls ex-post corporate activity. According to this approach, it is stated that the harm has already been done by the time the regulator intervenes. Ex-ante regulation of the digital markets has been recommended as the best course of action in light of this. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in India has suggested that ex-ante regulation of anti-competitive practices by big-tech companies is essential. As digital marketplaces are rapidly evolving, a regulatory framework needs to be established. The Committee recommends following the approach of the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), where dominant intermediaries or gatekeepers are identified as "Systemically Important Digital Intermediaries" (SIDIs) based on factors like revenue, market capitalization, business activity, and end-users. Once identified as a SIDI, the platform will have to submit an annual compliance report to the CCI, outlining the steps taken to fulfill necessary obligations.


Replicating Europe's Digital Markets Act Could Harm India's Expanding Digital Economy

The Digital Markets Act (DMA), recently implemented by the European Union, aims to place ex-ante (before the event) structural restrictions on the actions of key digital platforms. This business's regulation of digital markets is becoming more and more crucial. However, replicating Europe's Digital Markets Act (DMA) by placing preventive restrictions on digital platforms would be especially harmful in India's distinct and expanding economy. In order to ensure that quickly expanding businesses, like e-commerce and other digital marketplaces, can adapt and change to meet customer demand, it is crucial to attract steady investment and industry know-how. In the aforementioned context, the introduction of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by the European Union (EU) has sparked discussions regarding the regulation of digital markets throughout the world, with India also considering laws that are modeled after the DMA. This could be a fatal oversight. A strategy akin to the DMA could jeopardize the domestic innovation that has served as the foundation for programmes like Digital India and Startup India. Implementing a system like the DMA would deter developing businesses that would not be able to handle the higher compliance load. In a "ex ante" DMA-like system, the government would be forced to specify and calculate competitive benchmarks for sectors of the economy that have not even yet emerged from their infancy. The establishment of a DMA-like regime might significantly hinder investment at a time when India is viewed as a country that welcomes foreign investment. Ex ante regimes put preemptive restrictions on digital platforms without taking into account potential efficiencies that benefit customers, which is why this is the case. According to recent research, while competition enforcement generally may tend to encourage innovation, jurisdictions that do not permit efficiency defenses typically produce relatively less innovation because careful, case-by-case competition enforcement is replaced with preemptive prohibitions that stifle experimentation. It is essential that India adopt a sophisticated strategy to ensure that digital markets may maintain their momentum without being hampered by numerous and pointless compliances that are likely to cause more harm than benefit.

Privacy in Digital Market from the lens of competition law

Privacy is crucial in the digital market for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a fundamental human right to have control over one's personal information. The widespread collection, processing, and sharing of personal data without consent or transparency can lead to serious privacy violations and harm to individuals. Privacy builds trust in digital transactions and relationships. Consumers are more likely to do business with companies that have a proven track record of protecting their privacy and security. Without this trust, businesses may face reputational damage, lost customers, and financial losses. Moreover, privacy is closely linked to data security. Without proper privacy protections, sensitive data can be compromised, leading to data breaches, identity theft, and other cybercrimes. These incidents not only harm individuals but can also have far-reaching consequences for businesses, including legal liabilities, financial losses, and damage to their reputation. Privacy fosters innovation and competition in the digital market. When companies have access to large amounts of personal data, they may use it to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors or to create monopolies. By protecting privacy, regulators can promote fair competition, encourage innovation, and ensure that consumers have a variety of choices in the digital marketplace.


Reducing consumer privacy rules can be an abuse of dominance because they affect consumer welfare, CCI stated in its market research on the telecom sector. The CCI recently looked at privacy issues in a suo moto case involving WhatsApp's most recent privacy policy change that allowed data-sharing with Facebook. The CCI bases its shift in approach on the claim that "unreasonable data collection and sharing may grant competitive advantage to dominant players leading to exploitation and exclusion" in digital marketplaces. The CCI initially thought that a thorough inquiry was warranted given the dominant market position and market dominance enjoyed by WhatsApp and Meta in the relevant market for "Over-The-Top messaging apps through smartphones in India." The CCI found that WhatsApp's 2021 Privacy Policy breached the Act's prohibitions against abuse of dominance on the basis of a presumptive violation.


In Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law offices of Curtis v. Trinko LLP[9], the US Supreme Court noted that requiring businesses to share their resources would violate antitrust law since it may limit their ability to invest in facilities that would benefit them economically. The court in Microsoft's case[10] cited the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) legal precedent regarding dominant market actors' obligations to refrain from impeding legitimate competition in the relevant market. The court determined that Microsoft's contested practise constitutes an improper use of dominant position while assessing the implications of its reluctance to exchange the data on market competition.


Key issues and challenges faced by competition authorities

  1. Lack of specialized knowledge and technology: In order to deal with certain problems in distinct sectors, the CCI requires skilled and specialized staff to cater the malicious practice in different sectors
  2. Overlaps with other laws: Some rules and provisions of the Competition Act overlaps with other laws of the land.
  3. The Supreme Court of India, NCLAT, High Courts are overburdened with the appeals challenging the orders of CCI.
  4. A fresh definition of the market for digital technology is required. Since there are no physical limits in the digital world, it has been difficult for regulators to identify relevant markets. A strong competition law that is designed to meet the demands of the modern techno-legal world is essential with the introduction of Web 3.0, AI, IoT, Blockchain, and other technological advancements, as well as the emergence of issues like data protection and privacy, search bias, platform neutrality, deep discounting, hostile takeovers, confidentiality, etc.
  5. The antitrust issue of the modern day is continually changing, as are the methods through which enterprises are conducted. The CCI is finding it difficult to keep up with the ongoing and continuous change.
  6. In certain nations, the government enacts legislation that suspends the whole or partial application of competition law to certain industries. Example 1: South Africa The Covid-19 Block Exemption for the Healthcare Sector exempts agreements carried out at the request of and in coordination with the Department of Health for the sole purpose of responding to the Covid-19 pandemic national disaster from the application of sections 4 and 5 of the Act (prohibiting anti competitive horizontal and vertical agreements). The Banking Block Exemption and The Retail Block Exemption are two further block exemptions that were granted. The Competition Authority may authorise a temporary exception from competition law in foreign nations.
  7. Governments would require the assistance of competition authorities to make sure that any new rules they consider enacting do not unreasonably limit competition. These authorities could also push for the removal of regulatory restrictions when those restrictions really make it difficult for supply and demand to adjust smoothly.
  8. Cooperation among competitors to alleviate the shortage of goods or services related to the pandemic or to remedy disruptions of supply chains aim at increasing or restoring aggregate supply rather than at reducing aggregate supply or maintaining prices.
  9. Changing market structures and business models: More differentiated products and changing market structures make it difficult to pinpoint the right market. Younger jurisdictions frequently base their market delineation decisions on the case law of more established jurisdictions, such the EU, US, etc. It is challenging to apply the same market definitions, though, because markets are always evolving and because developed and developing nations' markets are structured differently. One example is the huge investment being made in India for new economy business models like aggregators (in the taxi and hospitality segment), e-commerce, etc. Market definition becomes extremely difficult due to these innovative company concepts that violate the conventional wisdom.  Additionally, there isn't much case law from even existing countries for such markets, thus emerging antitrust jurisdictions lack a place to start when doing their competition examination.



Competition law is a constantly evolving field in India, and it will require time and effort to develop stronger regulations that can effectively curb unfair trade practices and the dominance of big company giants. One way to achieve this is by making the laws more stringent and imposing stringent punishments without any easy remedy in the appellate court. The goal is to create a healthier market for fintech and digital markets. To achieve this goal, reports and studies are being carried out by economists and organizations to analyze the loopholes and rectify them. Privacy protection is an essential aspect of the digital market, and it is necessary to ensure fundamental rights, trust, innovation, competition, and cybersecurity. The recent scrutiny of WhatsApp's privacy policy update by the Competition Commission of India highlights the importance of robust privacy regulations to prevent dominant players from abusing their market power and harming consumers. However, it is essential to adopt a sophisticated strategy to regulate digital markets to avoid harming India's expanding digital economy. Replicating the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) could have unintended consequences, such as deterring investment, hindering innovation, and imposing unnecessary compliance burdens on developing businesses. Therefore, India must strike a balance between protecting privacy and fostering a conducive environment for innovation, investment, and fair competition in its digital market.




  1. M dhwani and C Avineet, CCI's Market Study On E-Commerce : The Way Forward (Publishing 2022)


  1. B Pavan, CCI wing probing dealings between ecommerce companies and preferred sellers (Publishing 2022)


  1. AZB Partners Advocates and Solicitors, Market Study On E-Commerce In India: Key Findings and Observations (Publishing 2020)
  2. Competition Commission of India & E-commerce: Initial Days & Way head (Publishing 2020)
  3. P Anvita, Traders’ Body CAIT Asks CCI To Aggressively Probe Into Ecommerce Giants (Publishing 2021)


  1. Our Bureau, ‘Halla Bol campaign against Amazon held across the country by CAIT’ The Hindu BusinessLine (Bengaluru, September 24)


  1. Ministry of Corporate Affairs,"Anti-Competitive Practices by Big-Tech Companies" (53rd Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance)


  1. E Johannes , O Denise Garcia, G Lorena, P Mateo, “Policy responses to fintech: a cross-country overview’ Financial Stability Institute (Publishing 2020)




[1] Rishika Chaurasia, 3rd Year, B.A.LL. B, Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU, New Delhi, Email Id – rishikachaurasia29@gmail.com  

[2] Radhika Singhal, 3rd Year, B.A.LL. B, Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU, New Delhi, Email Id – radhikasinghal565@gmail.com  

[3] Vaibhav Tyagi, 3rd Year, B.A.LL. B, Delhi Metropolitan Education, GGSIPU, New Delhi, Email Id – tyagi3610@gmail.com  

[4] 2020 SCC OnLine CCI 3

[5]  [2015] 131 SCL 240 (CCI)

[6] Johannes Ehrentraud, ‘Denise Garcia Ocampo, Lorena Garzoni, Mateo Piccolo, Policy responses to fintech: a cross-country overview’ (Financial Stability Institute, January 2020) < https://www.bis.org/fsi/publ/insights23.pdf>, accessed 04 April 2023

[7] Our Bureau, ‘Halla Bol campaign against Amazon held across the country by CAIT’ The Hindu BusinessLine (Bengaluru, September 24)

[8] Matrimony v. Google CCI Case Nos. 7 and 30 of Volume 79

[9] Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. ___ (2003)

[10] Microsoft v. Commission, The Judgment of Court of First Instance


Let's Start With Publication