Rethinking Abuse of Dominance Beyond Price

Introduction

Earlier, competition law mainly focused on high prices as the main cause of abuse by dominant firms. The idea was simple—if a powerful company charges more than a fair price, then the consumers are harmed and competition is distorted. This theory could be applied well in traditional markets where price was the main factor affecting consumers.

However, in today’s digital economy, many popular services are offered for free, and users do not directly pay any price at all. This raises an important question: can dominance still exist even when prices are zero or very low?

Basic Law

Section 4 of the Competition Act deals with the abuse of a dominant position. It covers practices like unfair or discriminatory pricing, limiting production or technical development, and denying market access to competitors.

Earlier this provision was mostly looked at mainly from a price angle, where high or unfair pricing was seen as the main sign of abuse.

Shift Towards Modern Market

With the growth of the digital economy, markets have changed a lot. Many platforms today offer services for free or at very low cost, so users do not directly pay anything to these forms or companies.

Instead, companies earn mainly through advertisements and by using user data. Because of this, the earlier focus on price becomes less accurate. So, harm is not visible in price now but may exist in other forms.

Data Power

In digital markets, big companies collect huge amounts of user data. This data helps them understand user behaviour better, improve their services, and target users in an effective manner.

Because of this advantage, new companies find it very difficult to compete, as they do not have access to such large data that other dominant companies have. This itself creates dominance even without any pricing issue.

Algorithm Control

In digital platforms, algorithms play an important role in deciding what a user sees on the screen. They decide which results appear first and which ones are given less priority.

This gives companies a lot of control over what users choose, because most people usually click on what they see at the top.

In Matrimony.com Ltd v Google, Google placed its own services at the top of search results and pushed competing services lower. This made it difficult for other companies to reach users.

Even though users were not paying any price, competition was still clearly affected.

In digital markets, big platforms act like gatekeepers because they control access to users. If a company wants to reach customers, it often has to depend on these platforms.

In the Google v CCI (Android case, 2022), Google imposed certain restrictions on mobile manufacturers, such as requiring pre-installation of its apps. This limited the freedom of manufacturers and reduced competition.

Here, dominance was exercised through control over access, not through pricing.

Also in e-commerce markets, platforms like Amazon and Flipkart play a major role. In the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh case (2019), it was alleged that these platforms gave preference to certain sellers, which harmed small sellers.

Even though prices for consumers were lower, the market conditions were still unfair for competitors.

Network Effects

In digital markets, network effects play a very important role. This means that as more users join a platform, its value keeps on increasing.

Because of this, more people are attracted to the same platform, and it keeps growing stronger. New companies find it very difficult to enter the market because they cannot match this large user base.

As a result, dominance becomes very strong and can even become permanent over time.

Problems for Competition Commission of India

This creates a challenge for the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It becomes difficult to prove abuse of dominance because there is no increase in price to clearly show harm.

Traditional laws of competition law mainly focus on pricing, which may not work properly in these new digital markets.

So, the problem is that the law is still based on old markets, while the new market and their functioning have already changed.

Need for Evolution in Competition Law

In my view, competition law needs to evolve with changing markets. It should focus more on factors like data control, algorithms, and access to platforms rather than only being focused only on price.

At the same time, rules should be balanced so that innovation continues and companies are not controlled too much.

Key Areas for Modern Competition Law

• Regulation of data control by dominant digital platforms
• Monitoring algorithm-based discrimination and ranking systems
• Ensuring fair market access for smaller competitors
• Preventing anti-competitive platform restrictions
• Balancing innovation with regulatory oversight

Traditional Markets vs Digital Markets

Conclusion

To conclude, abuse of dominance is no longer limited to high pricing. In digital markets, power can be exercised through data, algorithms, and control over access.

Therefore, competition law must adapt to these new forms of dominance to effectively protect fair competition in the future.