It is necessary to clarify certain principles on which this Bill is based. Digital markets have created companies incomparable in size and significance to most entities in other markets. Despite competition law enforcement against them, their power is only increasing with time. This is because competition in digital markets is different from other markets as competition is for the marker rather than in the market. This means that once a player is able to acquire a substantially large user base for its product, that product becomes the industry standard, and it is very hard for rivals to dislodge it from the market. Competition is then essentially for crumbs that the winner leaves behind in the market. This power can then be extended from one market to others.

In digital markets, certain players have become ‘gatekeepers’ as they control access to critical aspects of digital markets. For example, most consumers rely on Google search to access any information on the open web. This creates dependence on Google to return relevant search results and provide accurate information. In turn, Google has incentives to use its power as the only search engine that most people use to return search results that benefit its commercial ends.

Numerous Competition Commission of India (CCI) orders against big tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon have shown how this dependence leads to discriminatory behavior, arbitrariness and opacity. For instance, the CCI’s investigation in the Google Play case revealed that Google’s charging of 15%-30% fees to certain app developers and not others was not based on any economic value provided to those app developers. App developers are dependent on Google Play to reach consumers, as it is the most significant channel for app distribution globally. Thus, app developers have no realistic choice but to pay the arbitrary fee charged by Google as not being on Google Play is simply not an option for an app.

Verist Law assists HyugaLife in $5 million funding round