When the European Commission imposed a €4.34 billion penalty on Google in 2018 for anti-competitive practices related to Android, most headlines focused on the scale of the fine. What received far less attention was the mechanism through which the alleged dominance had been maintained: a set of contractual arrangements that looked entirely routine.

Device manufacturers were permitted to pre-install Google’s applications only if they agreed not to develop or distribute competing versions of Android. On paper, these were licensing agreements. In practice, they shaped the entire mobile ecosystem.

In India, similar questions about the competitive impact of platform contracts are now surfacing in real time. The Competition Commission of India is currently pursuing a major antitrust case examining whether Apple’s App Store policies unfairly restrict developers through mandatory payment systems and other contractual rules, a dispute that has already reached the Delhi High Court and could expose the company to penalties calculated on global turnover.

For years, lawyers reviewing technology platform contracts have seen similar provisions appear repeatedly across industries. These agreements rarely announce themselves as instruments of market control. Instead, they are embedded in ordinary-looking licensing terms, integration conditions, and commercial incentives that appear defensible when examined individually.

Competition regulators are now beginning to view these contracts differently. Rather than assessing each clause in isolation, authorities are increasingly examining how thousands of similar agreements operate together to structure entire markets.

The shift marks a growing recognition that in platform economies, contracts themselves often function as infrastructure.

Technology platform contracts operate very differently from traditional commercial agreements. In most cases, they are not negotiated between relatively equal parties. Instead, they are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to users, developers, and business partners. Within these standard terms are provisions that, often subtly, restrict competition and consolidate the platform’s control over the ecosystem.

One common mechanism is the use of API restrictions combined with competitive constraints. Platforms frequently provide APIs that allow third-party developers to build integrations and complementary services. While the license agreement may technically permit use of the API, it often includes a clause prohibiting developers from creating features that replicate or compete with the platform’s core functionality. The difficulty lies in the fact that what constitutes core functionality is determined entirely by the platform itself. As a result, if a third-party feature becomes successful, the platform can classify it as competitive, restrict its use, or integrate a similar feature into its own product and limit the developer’s access.

Another practice appears in the form of exclusive dealing arrangements disguised as commercial incentives. For instance, a payments platform may offer merchants a substantial discount on transaction fees. However, the discount may be conditional upon the merchant routing a large majority of its payment volume, say 80%, through that platform and not prominently displaying competing payment options. While this may appear to be a legitimate bulk discount arrangement when viewed individually, its cumulative effect across thousands of merchants is to restrict competitors’ access to transaction volume, effectively locking merchants into the platform.

Platforms also impose mandatory bundling through integration requirements. A social media platform may permit merchants to integrate their e-commerce systems with the platform, but only on the condition that they also use the platform’s advertising tools and analytics services. Businesses seeking access to the platform’s user base, therefore, have little choice but to adopt the entire suite of services, even if superior or more cost-effective alternatives exist for individual components.

Another powerful tool used by platforms is the inclusion of data asymmetry clauses. For example, an app marketplace may grant developers access to certain user analytics to help them improve their applications. At the same time, the platform’s terms may permit it to aggregate data across all developers and use that information to identify successful features, potential competitors, or acquisition targets. In effect, developers contribute valuable market intelligence through their activity on the platform, while the platform gains strategic insight without providing equivalent transparency in return.

These clauses are effective largely because digital platforms operate as market chokepoints. Businesses that rely on them often have no practical alternative. A restaurant cannot easily ignore a food delivery platform that controls a majority of local orders, and a mobile game developer cannot realistically bypass an app store that provides access to over a billion devices. Because participation in the platform ecosystem is essential, the contractual terms are rarely negotiated; they are simply accepted as the price of entry into the market.

For decades, competition law focused on pricing, market share, and merger review. Contracts were considered private arrangements between parties. If you did not like the terms, you did not have to sign. This framework made sense when markets were fragmented and companies operated at a comparable scale. But it fails when platforms achieve network effects that make them effectively mandatory for market participation.

This assumption made sense in markets where multiple alternatives existed and negotiating power was relatively balanced. Platform markets operate differently.

When network effects make a platform effectively indispensable for market participation, contractual terms become far less negotiable. A mobile game developer cannot realistically bypass the dominant app store. A restaurant may find it difficult to ignore a food delivery platform that controls a majority of digital orders in its market.

The evidentiary challenge also slowed regulatory action. Traditional antitrust cases often involved explicit price-fixing or territorial allocation agreements. Contract-based dominance is more subtle. Each clause may have a legitimate commercial rationale. The competitive impact only becomes visible when the cumulative effect of thousands of such agreements is examined.

The European Commission’s 2018 Google Android decision was the inflection point. The case examined three contract provisions requiring device manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome to access the Play Store, preventing manufacturers from selling devices running modified Android versions, and offering financial incentives for exclusively pre-installing Google Search.

Each clause could be justified individually. Taken together, regulators concluded that they prevented alternative Android ecosystems from emerging.

The precedent shifted the analytical lens from the fairness of individual clauses to the broader question of whether contractual structures were preventing competition.

India’s Competition Commission has increasingly adopted similar reasoning in its own investigations involving digital platforms. Rather than focusing only on pricing or market share, regulators are examining how contractual arrangements shape entry barriers and ecosystem participation.

Legislatures struggle to regulate technology fast enough. By the time a law passes, the business model has evolved. Competition enforcement, by contrast, is principle-based. It does not require predicting specific harms but restricts conduct that prevents competition in ways that harm consumers or innovation.

This makes enforcement particularly suited to tech markets, where the same competitive harm appears in different contractual forms. Search bias can be implemented through algorithmic ranking, exclusive default agreements, or contractual restrictions on rival placement. Data advantages can be locked in through terms of service, granting platforms unlimited rights to user and partner data. Interoperability barriers can be created through licensing terms prohibiting reverse engineering.

Even regulatory regimes such as the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which designates certain platforms as “gatekeepers,” still rely heavily on enforcement to address new contractual strategies as they emerge.

A payments platform might accept an Indian Competition Commission’s order requiring third-party payment options. But implementing separate terms for India versus other markets creates operational complexity. Developers want consistent global APIs. Users expect features to work the same way across regions.

This creates regulatory spillover. When the European Commission required Google to offer Android users a choice screen for search engines, the technical implementation rolled out globally. When India’s Competition Commission mandated that app developers be allowed to use third-party payment systems, the platform changes affected global operations.

Platforms resist this, arguing that jurisdiction-specific compliance is feasible. But in practice, the engineering cost of maintaining parallel systems, the reputational cost of offering inferior terms in some markets, and the risk that practices permitted in one jurisdiction will be challenged in another all push toward global harmonization.

This is why a single major enforcement action can shift industry-wide practices. Once one large jurisdiction establishes that certain contract terms violate competition law, platforms face pressure to revise those terms globally or accept defending them market-by-market.

For lawyers advising companies operating within platform ecosystems, the pattern often becomes visible only after reviewing multiple agreements across different sectors.

A startup building on a platform may sign what appears to be a routine API license. A cloud customer may agree to data-processing terms embedded in a service agreement. A merchant may accept incentive-based pricing structures in order to access a dominant distribution channel.

Viewed individually, these contracts appear commercially standard. Viewed across dozens of transactions, however, a structural pattern emerges: the contractual framework consistently expands the platform’s ability to shape how participants interact within the ecosystem.

This cumulative perspective is one reason competition authorities are increasingly examining platform agreements at scale rather than clause by clause. What may appear to be a commercially reasonable provision in one agreement can have a very different impact when replicated across thousands of counterparties.

As platform ecosystems expand across sectors from app marketplaces and cloud infrastructure to healthcare data and financial service APIs, the contractual frameworks governing access to those ecosystems will increasingly determine how competition unfolds.

For lawyers advising companies that build on digital platforms, the most important competition questions may arise long before a dispute or enforcement action begins. They emerge in the architecture of the agreements themselves, where seemingly routine provisions quietly define who can participate in the market and on what terms.

In platform markets, the architecture of the contract increasingly determines the architecture of competition itself.

About the authors: Rashmi Deshpande is the founder of Fountainhead Legal.

Prachi Shrivastava is a lawyer, former business journalist, and founder of Lawfinity Solutions, where she advises law firms, General Counsel and international arbitration practices on positioning and practice development.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.