The Competition Commission of India should clarify its jurisprudence on the significance of market shares for determinations of dominance, say the authors.
Authors
Shilpi Bhattacharya, Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Pankhudi Khandelwal, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Summary
The researchers draw on certain aspects of Competition Commission of India’s enforcement in digital markets in order to identify some noteworthy trends, provide a comparison with global jurisprudence and ascertain areas of concern for the future. It is not possible to do justice to the array of competition issues arising in India’s digital markets in this foreword.
Therefore, our objective here is to advance certain aspects of Indian enforcement that in our opinion will benefit from greater dialogue. Accordingly, each section of this foreword is intended to induce further deliberation.
The first section discusses closure of cases after prima facie review, the second section explores determinations of dominance, the third, fourth and fifth sections discuss abuses of dominance in digital markets through privacy reductions, unfair terms and preferential treatment, the sixth section examines algorithmic collusion before concluding the discussion.
Published in: E-Competitions Antitrust Case Laws e-Bulletin, Concurrences, France.
To read the full article, please click here.
