Review of Regulatory Challenges in Digital Platforms: Cases from India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/v3jxj766Keywords:
regulatory, ICT, digital platform, competition, case, India, CCI, JEL ClassificationAbstract
Information Communications Technology (ICT) networks and infrastructure are now critical resources for organizations to run their business, compete and contribute productively in the new age digital markets. ICT has supported novel commercial models (Internet firms), 'digital platforms', by redefining delivery of goods and services and has significantly enhanced consumer welfare. The presence of intrinsic network effects in case digital platforms combined with the limited interoperability makes the prevalent digital ecosystem to have monopolistic structure or at best an oligopolistic market structure. There are regular entry and exit in digital markets, firms exercise mergers and acquisitions as a business strategy to establish its market share or diversify into new business areas. The power of user information (through data) enables the firms to practice price discrimination, thereby appropriating consumer surplus. Thus, competition issues in the new age digital markets must to be tackled by the competition authority taking cognizance that the regulatory regime does not curb the motivation to innovate. The paper reviews the competition issues i n digital ecosystem from the Indian perspective and reflects possible solutions to safeguard competition in the digital markets.
Downloads
References
1. Bharadwaj et al. (eds.), Multi-dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1232-8_11
2. Bloomberg (2019). Why Bhavish Aggarwal turned down a $1.1 billion SoftBank deal. The Economic Times. Retrieved from
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/68788526.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinte rest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst on October 12, 2019.
3. CCI (2012). Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012. Retrieved from https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/07%20&%20%2030%20of%202012.pdf on November 12, 2019.
4. CCI (2014). Case. No. 46 of 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/462014_0.pdf on November 18, 2019.
5. CCI (2015). Case No. 06 of 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/062015_0.pdf on November 18, 20
6. CCI (2017). Case No. 25 of 2017 Retrieved from https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/25%20-
%2028%20of%202017.pdf on November 18, 2019.
7. CCI (2017). Case No. 26-28 of 2017 Retrieved from https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/25%20-%2028%20of%202017.pdf on November 18, 2019.
8. CCI (2018). Case No. 20 of 2018 Retrieved from https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/20-of-2018.pdf on November 18, 2019.
9. CCI (2018). Case No. 37 of 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/37of2018.pdf on November 12, 2019.
10. Chicago Booth (2019). Study of Digital Platforms Market Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee Report. Accessed from https://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/market-structure-report.pdf?la=en&hash=E08C7C9AA7367F2D612DE24F814074BA43CAED8C
11. on November 20, 2019.
12. Conger, Kate (2019). Uber Posts $5.2 billion loss and slowest ever growth rate. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/technology/uber-earnings.html on November 12, 2019.
13. Dalal, M and Bansal, V (2019). How Ola got SoftBank and Tiger to invest in Ola Electric on its own terms. Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/how-ola-swung-a-funding-flip-1565195590035.html on December 20, 2019.
14. Dalal, M (2020). And now, Paytm faces its moment of truth. Livemint. Retrieved from
15. https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/and-now-paytm-faces-its-moment-of-truth-
11578503275841.html on January 11, 2020.
16. Elhauge E (2016). Horizontal Shareholding. Harvard Public Policy Law Working Paper No.16-17. Retrieved from L http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632024 on November 12, 2019.
17. European Commission (2017). Business to Business relations in the online platform
18. Environment. FWC ENTR/300/PP/2013/FC-WIFO. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/04c75b09-4b2b-11e7-aea8-01aa75ed71a1 on October 20, 2019.
19. Evans DS, Schmalensee R (2002). Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries. In JL Adam B Jaffe, S Stern (eds.). NBER Book Series Innovation Policy and the Economy (Volume 2), chapter 1, p. 1 to 50. MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8268.pdf. on November 12, 2019.
20. Evans, DS and Schmalensee (2012). The Antitrust analysis of multi-sided platform business. NBER Working Paper No. 18783. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18783 on November 12, 2019.
21. Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Innovation and scaling of ICT for the bottom-of-the-pyramid Journal of Information Technology, 28(4), 296-315.
22. Graham C (2004). Introduction. In C Graham, F Smith (eds.). Competition, Regulation and the New Economy. p. 1 to 12. Hart Publishing.
23. Greenhalgh C, Rogers M (2010). Innovation, Intellectual Property and Economic Growth. Princeton
University Press.
24. Khan M., Lina (2019). The Separation of Platform and Commerce. Columbia Law Review, 119 (4) 119, 973-1098. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26632275 on November 1,
2019.
25. Leong L.M.C, Pan L.S., Sue N., & Cui L. (2016). The Emergence of Self-Organizing E- Commerce Ecosystems in Remote Villages of China: A tale of Digital Empowerment for Rural Development. MIS Quarterly,40(2), 475-484.
26. Andrew, McAfee (2019). More From Less: The surprising story of how we learned to prosper using fewer resources - and what happens next. Publisher: Simon & Schuster UK, ISBN13: 9781471180330
27. Parsheera, S., Shah, A., & Bose, A. (2017). Competition Issues in India’s Online Economy. NIPFP Working paper No. 194. Retrieved from https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2017/04/WP_2017_194.pdf on October 23, 2019.
28. Peitz, M., Schweitzer, H., and Valletti, T. (2014). Market Definition, Market Power and Regulatory Interaction in Electronic Communications Market. CERRE study, Centre on Regulation in Europe. Retrieved from
https://cerre.be/sites/cerre/files/141029_CERRE_MktDefMktPwrRegInt_ECMs_Final.pdf on October 20, 2019.
29. Rubinfeld DL (1998). Antitrust Enforcement in Dynamic Network Industries. The Antitrust Bulletin, Fall-Winter, 859 to 882. Retrieved from https://www.law. berkeley.edu/files/dlr_enforcement.pdf. on October 20, 2019.
30. Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.
31. Schumpeter, Joseph (1994). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Chapter 5-8. Retrieved from https://eet.pixel-online.org/files/etranslation/original/Schumpeter,%20Capitalism,%20Socialism%20and%20Democ racy.pdf on October 23, 2019.
32. Srivastava, S. C., & Shainesh, G. (2015). Bridging the Service Divide Through Digitally Enabled Service Innovations: Evidence from Indian Healthcare Service Providers. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 245-267.
33. Turck M (2016). The Power of Data Network Effects. Retrieved from http://mattturck. com/2016/01/04/the-power-of-data-network-effects/ on October 23, 2019.
34. Van Gorp & Honnefelder (2015) Regulation and Competition: Challenges for Competition Policy in the Digitalised Economy. Communication Strategies, 99(3), 149-192.
35. Malik O (2015). In Silicon Valley Now, It’s Almost Always Winner Takes All. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/in-silicon-valley-now-its-almost-always-winner-takes-all on October 23, 2019.
36. PTI (2019). Ola halves losses revenue up 61%. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/ola-halves-losses-revenue-up-61/articleshow/67783173.cms?from=mdr on November 12, 2019.
37. Romer, Paul (2019). A tax that could fix big tech. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-google.html on November 24, 2019.
38. Russell, Jon (2016). Ola confirms it has shut down TaxiForSure, the rival it acquired for $200M. TechCrunch. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/17/ola-confirms-it-has-shut-down-taxiforsure-the-rival-it-acquired-for-200m/ on November 12, 2019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
