On November 18, 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued a landmark order imposing a fine of ₹213.14 crore and forcing several behavioural remedies on Meta. This included a five year ban on sharing user data collected on WhatsApp with other Meta companies such as Facebook and Instagram, for advertising purposes. In turn, Meta approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in an appeal against CCI’s order. The NCLAT, on January 23, 2025, granted a stay on the five-year ban from sharing user data and the penalty, subject to Meta depositing 50% of the total penalty.
The CCI’s order found that the privacy policy update introduced by Meta’s subsidiary, WhatsApp, in 2021 was an abuse of dominant position in the “Over-The-Top (OTT) messaging services for smartphones” and “Online Display advertising” markets in India. This update required users to mandatorily consent to expanded data-sharing, allowing Meta to provide access to such data to all of its other platforms; forcing users to accept a data-sharing agreement on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, combined with the competitive advantage this data provides in online digital display advertising, constitutes an abuse of dominant position. The updated policy was viewed as a strategy to strengthen the market power of WhatsApp, potentially harming competition and hindering other messaging platforms from competing on equal terms.
The era of data
In the 21st century, the economy has become digital and data is the new oil, but unlike oil, the utility of data is virtually limitless. It can be collected, analysed, and reused indefinitely. In digital markets, data plays a foundational role in creating and sustaining dominance due to its unique characteristics and the competitive advantages it provides. Data is both the source and the enabler of dominance in digital markets. Platforms such as Meta leverage vast data pools collected from billions of users to refine algorithms, offer hyper-targeted advertising, and create personalised experiences, thereby locking consumers into their ecosystems. This dominance is further amplified by data-driven network effects, where more users generate more data, enhancing the platform’s value and deterring competitors.
Meta is not the only tech giant to face scrutiny from the CCI. In 2022, Google was fined ₹1,337.76 crore for abusing its dominant position across several markets, including licensable operating systems for smart mobile devices, app stores for Android devices, non-OS-specific mobile web browsers, online video hosting platforms, and general web search services in India. Google was found to have abused its dominant position by mandating the pre-installation of its apps on Android devices. This penalty was later upheld by NCLAT in 2023.
Global actions
The challenges posed by Meta’s market dominance are not confined to India and have been a global regulatory concern. The Majority Staff Report on ‘Competition in Digital Markets’ (by the U.S. Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary) highlighted the urgent need to reform antitrust laws to address the unprecedented market power of tech giants. Meta faces antitrust litigation in the U.S. over its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, accused of creating barriers to entry for competitors, while Google has been sued for monopolistic practices. In 2024, the US District Court for the District of Columbia found Google in violation of the Sherman Act due to exclusive agreements in search and advertising markets.
Australia has also taken steps to address the dominance of digital platforms. In Europe, the Facebook-Germany case stands out, where the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) found Meta had abused its dominant position by combining user data from various sources without explicit consent, violating both European Union (EU) competition law and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This decision accentuates how data misuse can erode consumer privacy and hinder competition by creating entry barriers.
In addition, Meta is under scrutiny in the EU for its ad-supported subscription service, while Google has already been fined over €8 billion across three major antitrust cases, including those targeting its anti-competitive practices in the mobile operating systems and app markets.
The parallels between the regulatory actions against Meta and Google emphasise the importance of addressing data exploitation, vertical integration, and anti-competitive practices through a multidisciplinary approach. Together, these approaches illustrate the challenge of harmonising regulatory philosophies to effectively tackle the monopolistic practices of global tech giants.
Google and Meta are not even the first tech giants to face policing for dominating markets in the U.S. In the past, a ruling in an antitrust lawsuit required AT&T to divest 22 operating companies, dismantling its monopoly. Similarly, anti-trust proceedings against Microsoft resulted in oversight, ensuring API access for third-party developers and greater flexibility for PC manufacturers.
The CCI orders against Google and Meta represent just a small chapter in the broader, well-documented concerns about the overwhelming dominance of “tech monopolies” in key markets such as advertising, e-commerce and smartphone services. While the orders are a great beginning, a cycle of disputes across jurisdictions indicates that they may be stop-gap measures in regulating the free market in this context.
On India’s laws
India’s competition law, namely, the Competition Act, 2002, currently lacks explicit provisions to address data-centric monopolies. While traditional frameworks focus on price-based dominance, digital markets often witness dominance arising from data aggregation. To address this gap, amendments to the Act should introduce “data monopolization” as a parameter for assessing market dominance by redefining key concepts such as “market power” and “dominant position” to reflect the realities of data-driven dynamics. The Act should also incorporate global best practices for addressing the concerns, such as mandating interoperability and data-sharing agreements or separation of integrated services. These measures could serve as effective solutions for entrenched monopolies and help level the playing field for smaller competitors while maintaining innovation incentives.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides an opportunity to complement competition law by regulating data collection, consent, and usage. However, the absence of explicit coordination mechanisms between the CCI and the Data Protection Board of India limits the effectiveness of addressing overlapping concerns. India could draw inspiration from the EU’s integration of competition law with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and GDPR to create frameworks that tackle data exploitation and anti-competitive practices comprehensively.
Addressing these challenges is crucial for India to fully harness the potential of its digital transformation, ensuring inclusive growth and equitable access to digital resources across the nation. The Economic Survey 2024-25, recently tabled in Parliament, underlines India’s rapid digital transformation, and emphasises the critical role of artificial intelligence (AI) in shaping the nation’s economic landscape. These developments underscore the imperative for India to adapt its regulatory frameworks, including competition law. As the digital economy continues to evolve, regulatory frameworks must not only catch up but also anticipate emerging challenges posed by rapidly advancing technologies and the ever-expanding influence of tech giants.
While the Meta case serves as a pivotal moment in India’s efforts to regulate digital markets and address the complexities of data-driven monopolies, it also highlights the need for a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach to competition law.
Shri Venkatesh is the founding partner at SKV Law Offices and has over 17 years of experience in commercial dispute resolution and regulatory law. Priya Dhankhar is a Senior Associate at SKV Law Offices and has over eight years of experience in dispute resolution. Harsh Vardhan is an Associate at SKV Law Offices and works with the Dispute Resolution team at SKV
Published – March 21, 2025 12:16 am IST
