India’s recent legislative push to implement antitrust laws like those in the EU has stirred significant concern among technology giants operating within the country, like Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon. That move, aimed at curbing the dominance of big tech companies and fostering a more competitive market environment, was met with a mixed reception, particularly from those within the technology sector.
The proposed antitrust law draws inspiration from the regulatory framework of the EU, which has been at the forefront of global antitrust enforcement. The EU’s regulations are known for their rigorous scrutiny of large tech corporations, often resulting in major fines and operational restrictions for companies that violate competition laws. Adaptation of this model in India signals a shift towards more assertive regulatory practices in the tech industry.
The Indian government is examining a panel’s report proposing a new ‘Digital Competition Bill‘ to complement existing antitrust laws. The law would target ‘systemically significant digital’ companies with a domestic turnover exceeding $480 million or a global turnover over $30 billion, along with a local user base of at least 10 million for its digital services. Companies would be required to operate in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, with the bill recommending a penalty of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover for violations, mirroring the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Big digital companies would be prohibited from exploiting non-public user data and from favoring their own products or services on their platforms. Additionally, they would be barred from restricting users’ ability to download, install, or use third-party apps in any way, and must allow users to select default settings freely.
Both domestic and international tech firms have voiced concerns about the potential impact of these regulations on their operations. A key US lobby group has already opposed the move, fearing its business impact. The primary worry is that the new laws could stifle innovation and place difficult compliance burdens on companies. That sentiment echoes the broader global debate on the balance between regulation and innovation in the tech sector.
Why does it matter?
Market Dynamics: These laws could significantly alter the competitive landscape in India’s tech industry, making it easier for smaller companies to challenge established giants.
Consumer Protection: Robust antitrust regulations are designed to protect consumers from monopolistic practices that can lead to higher prices, reduced choices, and stifled innovation. Ensuring fair competition can enhance consumer welfare.
Global Influence: By aligning its regulatory framework with that of the EU, India could influence how other emerging markets approach antitrust issues.
Investment Climate: Clear and consistent regulatory standards can attract foreign investment by providing a predictable business environment. However, the perceived stringency of these laws could also deter some investors concerned about compliance costs and regulatory risks.
The Turkish competition authority has fined Google approximately 482 million lira ($14.85 million) for not meeting obligations related to hotel searches. The fine stems from Google’s failure to address the authority’s concerns regarding fair competition with local search engines.
The decision highlights ongoing issues with Google’s compliance with competition laws in various countries. The competition board in Turkey aims to ensure a level playing field for local businesses in the digital marketplace.
Google has faced similar scrutiny and penalties in other regions, emphasising the global nature of regulatory challenges confronting major tech companies. The fine reinforces Turkey’s commitment to enforcing fair competition practices within its digital economy.
Alphabet’s Google will avoid a jury trial over allegations of digital advertising dominance after paying $2.3 million to settle the US government’s monetary damages claim. The payment means the case, involving non-monetary demands, will be heard directly by a judge. Initially, the Justice Department and several states had sued Google, accusing it of monopolising digital advertising and overcharging users, seeking primarily to break up its advertising business.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema scheduled the non-jury trial for 9 September, where she will directly hear arguments and decide the case. Google criticised the Justice Department’s damages claim as contrived, denying any wrongdoing and not admitting liability by making the payment. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the matter.
The Justice Department initially claimed more than $100 million in damages but later reduced the demand to less than $1 million. Google’s $2.3 million payment covers the interest and potential tripling of damages under US antitrust law. Google accused the government of inflating its damages claim to secure a jury trial, while the government contended that Google has worked to keep its anticompetitive conduct hidden from public scrutiny.
Crypto exchange Binance has requested the dismissal of most of a £10 billion ($12.8 billion) lawsuit in London, alleging collusion with other exchanges to delist the Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) cryptocurrency. The lawsuit, brought to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on behalf of over 200,000 BSV owners, claims that exchanges, including Kraken, engaged in anti-competitive behaviour to delist BSV in 2019, causing its value to plummet and hindering its potential to become a ‘top tier’ cryptocurrency.
BSV Claims’ lawyers argue that the delisting prevented BSV from gaining prominence and have valued this aspect of the claim at up to £9 billion. Despite not opposing the case’s certification under the UK’s collective proceedings regime, Binance’s lawyer, Brian Kennelly, argued that those who retained BSV made a voluntary decision and could have reinvested in other cryptocurrencies.
While Binance declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, Kraken described the lawsuit as ‘baseless.’ The delisting of BSV by Binance, Kraken, and others in 2019 followed claims by Australian computer scientist Craig Wright, who asserted he was the pseudonymous inventor of bitcoin, ‘Satoshi Nakamoto.’ Wright was recently found to have lied and forged documents to support his claim, a ruling he intends to appeal.
In a recent interview, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger presented how Intel intends to remain a relevant actor in the Chinese chip market while also scaling up production in the US. This was done at the occasion of the Computex tech conference in Taipei, where Intel released its new Xeon 6 processor, destined for data centres. Its release comes at a time when tech giants are challenging Nvidia’s chip dominance.
Gelsinger aims to build an Intel foundry in the US after the organisation was incentivised to increase facilities in the US with as much as $8.5 billion in grants and $11 billion in loans under the CHIPS and Science Act. In its release, the White House stated this is a step towards ‘protecting national security’ and increasing US share of global chip production to ‘20% […] by the end of the decade’.
“The capital is critical. We said that we have to have economic competitiveness if we build these factories in the US, and that’s what the CHIPS Act has done. It’s created a level playing field if I were building a factory in Asia versus US,” Gelsinger said.
Why does it matter?
At the same time, Gelsinger reiterated the importance of the Chinese market to his company. “China is a big market for Intel today, and one that we’re investing in to be a big market for Intel tomorrow as well,” he said. Intel has been competing to catch up its global market share since 2017, when South Korea’s Samsung overtook it as the largest chipmaker in terms of revenue. Since then, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company reportedly overtook Samsung in 2023.
The US Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have agreed to proceed with antitrust investigations into Microsoft, OpenAI, and Nvidia’s dominance in the AI industry. Under the agreement, the Justice Department will focus on Nvidia’s potential antitrust violations, while the FTC will examine Microsoft and OpenAI’s conduct. Microsoft has a significant stake in OpenAI, having invested $13 billion in its for-profit subsidiary.
The regulators’ deal, expected to be finalised soon, reflects increased scrutiny of the AI sector. The FTC is also investigating Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI. This action follows a January order requiring several tech giants, including Microsoft and OpenAI, to provide information on AI investments and partnerships.
Why does it matter?
Last year, the FTC began investigating OpenAI for potential consumer protection law violations. US antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter recently expressed concerns about the AI industry’s reliance on vast data and computing power, which could reinforce the dominance of major firms. Microsoft, OpenAI, Nvidia, the Justice Department, and the FTC have not commented on the ongoing investigations.
London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, must confront a lawsuit worth up to £13.6 billion ($17.4 billion) for purportedly exploiting its position in the online advertising sector. The lawsuit, filed by Ad Tech Collective Action on behalf of UK-based publishers, accuses Google of anti-competitive practices that have led to publishers’ financial losses.
Despite Google’s efforts to block the case, arguing it lacked coherence and denying the allegations, the CAT certified the lawsuit to proceed towards a trial, expected no sooner than the end of 2025. The tribunal emphasised that the threshold for certifying such cases under the UK’s collective proceedings regime is relatively low.
Google’s legal team contends that its impact on the ad tech industry has been positive, fostering competition. However, the CAT’s decision marks another setback for a tech giant, following recent rulings allowing cases against Meta and Apple to proceed.
The Coalition for Open Digital Ecosystems (CODE), a collaborative industry initiative launched in late 2023 by tech giants like Meta, Google and Qualcomm, held its first public event in Brussels advocating for open digital ecosystems to stimulate growth, foster innovation, and empower consumers, particularly within the challenging global context of the EU’s economy. The event hosted a high-level panel discussion with representatives from Meta, BEUC, the European Parliament and Copenhagen Business School.
Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon gave an interview to Euractiv where he emphasised CODE’s three key elements of openness – seamless connectivity and interoperability, consumer choice, an an environment of open access. These elements aim to enhance user experience, maintain data access, and provide fair access to digital tools for developers, particularly smaller companies and startups. Amon highlighted the importance of interoperability and fair access for developers, especially as platforms evolve and become more relevant for various devices, including cars. He also stressed the need to provide fair access for smaller companies with new ideas to participate and reach customers in a competitive environment.
He said that Qualcomm is focused on developing computing engines, such as the Neural Processing Unit (NPU), which is designed to run all the time and handle multiple models. This development aims to add computing capability to various devices while addressing the challenge of integrating this new engine into devices without compromising battery life. Amon also expressed a positive view of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), applauding the European regulatory leadership for their focus on the importance of open and interoperable platforms.
Why does it matter?
The panel discussion envisioned a positive scenario for the European digital agenda, highlighting the importance of openness, interoperability, and collaboration for consumers, businesses, and innovation. CODE’s emergence as a new stakeholder in the Brussels digital, tech, and competition policy space highlights the growing recognition of the importance of open digital ecosystems in fostering growth, innovation, and consumer empowerment within the EU’s digital landscape.
A US lobby group representing tech giants Google, Amazon, and Apple has urged India to reconsider its proposed competition law, similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The group argues that the new regulations, which aim to prevent the misuse of non-public data and preferential treatment of partners, could increase user costs and discourage investment in the country. The draft ‘Digital Competition Bill’ targets large firms with significant global turnover and local user bases, aiming to curb monopolistic practices and promote fair competition.
India’s Corporate Affairs Ministry is working on the bill, which proposes strict penalties for violations, including fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual global turnover. The proposed law addresses concerns about the growing market power of a few dominant digital companies in India. However, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) warns that the legislation’s broad scope could lead to reduced investments, higher digital service prices, and a narrower range of consumer offerings.
Why does it matter?
Despite opposition from major US tech firms, a coalition of 40 Indian startups supports the new law, arguing it will help level the playing field and combat monopolistic practices. The Indian government is reviewing the proposal’s feedback and will seek parliamentary approval in the coming months, with or without modifications.
Lobbying groups representing airlines, hotels, and retailers in Europe are urging the EU tech regulators to ensure that Google considers their views, not just those of large intermediaries, when implementing changes to comply with landmark tech regulations. These groups, including Airlines for Europe, Hotrec, EuroCommerce, and Ecommerce Europe, had previously expressed concerns about the potential impact of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) on their revenues.
The DMA aims to impose rules on tech giants like Google to give users more choice and offer competitors a fairer chance to compete. However, these industry groups fear the proposed adjustments could harm their direct sales revenues and exacerbate discrimination. In a joint letter to EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager and EU industry chief Thierry Breton, dated 22 May, they emphasised their mounting concerns regarding the potential consequences of the DMA.
Why does it matter?
Specifically, the groups worry that the proposed changes may give preferential treatment to powerful online intermediaries, resulting in a loss of visibility and traffic for airlines, hotels, merchants, and restaurants.
Despite Google’s acknowledgement in March that changes to search results may impact various businesses, including those in the European market, the company has not provided immediate comment on the recent concerns raised by these lobbying groups. The European Commission, currently investigating Google for possible DMA breaches, has yet to respond to requests for comment on the matter.
