India's antitrust play needs a rewrite
There is something oddly theatrical about India's markets. A few giants now play every role - producer, distributor, seller and reviewer. If capitalism were a Bollywood film, we would be somewhere deep into the second act. The camera never pans away from the stars. The script is over-designed, the plot barely believable, and the supporting cast is left applauding from the wings. What this production lacks is direction. A strong antitrust regime should function as the off-stage hand that can stop the show when the ensemble is replaced by a monopoly.Start with the illusion of choice. Consumers seem to have endless options. Multiple apps, brands and platforms. In reality, their decisions are quietly managed by default settings, recommendation engines and closed ecosystems. You think you are shopping around. You are actually walking a hallway with two doors, both leading to the same room. This isn't a marketplace of ideas. It's an orchestra conducted by a duopoly that writes both the score and the reviews.India's Competition Act of 2002 was well-intended. But it was born in a simpler time. It functions well in hindsight. It spots the corpse, but doesn't see the murder coming. In a world where algorithmic decisions are made in milliseconds, retrospective enforcement is like sending a telegram after a cyberattack.We don't need more post-mortems. We need a pre-emptive immune system. One that stops dominance before it ossifies.The trouble is not confined to digital platforms. The same centralisation is quietly embedding itself into India's physical infrastructure. Ports, airports, fibre networks, toll roads, data centres - arteries of the economy are increasingly controlled by a select few. When a single group manages warehouse, gateway, fibre pipe and checkout, what you have is not a supply chain but a bottleneck with a business plan.Consumers are left with the 'invisible tax of absence'. No second airport terminal, no rival broadband, no alternative toll road. Choice, in infrastructure, is not a feature. It is the foundation. And that foundation is steadily being privatised.Around the world, competition authorities have shifted focus. The EU's Digital Markets Act targets gatekeepers who control access to platforms and users. It forbids self-preferencing, demands data separation and insists on real interoperability. Britain followed with its 2024 legislation that empowers regulators to intervene before harm becomes structural.The US, traditionally more lenient, is catching up. Federal Trade Commission, under Lina Khan, has taken on Big Tech with a zeal not seen in decades. Lawsuits have replaced policy briefs, and default settings are now considered battlegrounds for competition. Even Japan and South Korea have started examining algorithmic bias and platform neutrality.China's approach is more opaque, but no less firm. When its regulators bring down a tech giant, it's often swift and politically aligned. The message is simple: no company grows beyond the state's comfort zone.India is inching towards the future with its proposed Digital Competition Bill. The Bill seeks to impose obligations on 'systemically significant digital intermediaries', asking them to behave more like neutral infrastructure and less like landlords with a favourite tenant. No bundling. No unfair ranking. No quiet preference for in-house brands. It borrows from Brussels, adapts for Delhi, and if enforced well, it could make up for decades of policy inertia.Because without it, the market won't crash but congeal. Space for startups will shrink, funding will chase favour rather than innovation. The price of admission will no longer be a good idea but a good relationship with the gatekeepers.Antitrust policy is not a punishment for success. It's a safety net for fairness. It ensures that achievement does not calcify into entitlement. It reminds us that markets are not meant to be gated estates where old money and new data sit comfortably, sipping synergy.India stands at a crucial fork. One road leads to genuine plurality - more products, platforms, participants. The other leads to a curated monopoly garden where every flower is owned, every bench reserved, and the public is welcome only on guided tours.The market is not your mother. It does not love you unconditionally. It will not hold your hand through failure, or clap for your potential. It'll reward dominance if no one stops it. And punish aspiration if no one protects it. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Can Coforge's ambition to lead the IT Industry become a reality?
BlackRock returns, this time with Ambani. Will it be lucky second time?
Amazon is making stealthy moves in healthcare, here's why!
The trader who blew the whistle on Jane Street
Stock Radar: Globus Spirits breaks out from 9-month consolidation; check target & stop loss for long positions
Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
These large-caps have 'strong buy' & 'buy' recos and an upside potential of more than 25%
Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and upside potential of up to 36% in 1 year
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Rubio orders US diplomats to launch lobbying blitz against Europe's tech law
By Humeyra Pamuk WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump's administration has instructed U.S. diplomats in Europe to launch a lobbying campaign to build an opposition to the European Union's Digital Services Act, which Washington says stifles free speech and imposes costs on U.S. tech companies, an internal diplomatic cable seen by Reuters showed. In a State Department cable dated August 4 that was signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio , the agency said the EU was pursuing "undue" restrictions on freedom of expression by its efforts to combat hateful speech, misinformation and disinformation and the DSA was further enhancing these curbs. The EU's DSA is a landmark law that is meant to make the online environment safer and fairer by compelling tech giants to do more to tackle illegal content, including hate speech and child sexual abuse material. Trump has made combating censorship - particularly what he sees as the stifling of conservative voices online - a major theme of his administration. Top U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have focused on European officials and regulations, accusing them of "censoring" Americans, an accusation that the European Union rejects. The cable, whose headline described it as an "action request", tasked American diplomats across U.S. embassies in Europe with regularly engaging with EU governments and digital services authorities to convey U.S. concerns about the DSA and the financial costs for U.S. tech companies. "Posts should focus efforts to build host government and other stakeholder support to repeal and/or amend the DSA or related EU or national laws restricting expression online," the cable said in its "objective" section, referring to U.S. diplomatic missions. It provided specific suggestions to U.S. diplomats on how the EU law may be changed and the talking points to help them make that argument. State Department did not comment for this story. EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In March, EU's antitrust and tech chiefs told U.S. lawmakers that the new tech rule aimed to keep digital markets open and is not targeted at U.S. tech giants. The Commission has also pushed back against speculation that the 27-member EU's landmark tech regulatory regime could be included in the EU-U.S. negotiations. "Our legislation will not be changed. The DMA and the DSA are not on the table in the trade negotiations with the U.S.," Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told a daily news conference. A CAMPAIGN FOR "FREE SPEECH" The order to U.S. diplomats marks an acceleration of the administration's efforts to promote what it calls "America's free-speech tradition," a policy that has added friction to the already fraught U.S. relationship with European allies. That policy came into focus in February, when Vance stunned European leaders by accusing them - at a conference usually known for displays of transatlantic unity - of censoring the speech of groups such as Germany's right-wing AfD party and backsliding on democracy. During his trip, Vance went on to meet with the leaders of AfD - classified by Germany's domestic intelligence service as a suspected extremist group - which became the country's largest opposition party after the February election. Trump and his Republican allies have repeatedly accused the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden of encouraging suppression of free speech on online platforms, claims that have centered on efforts to stem false claims about vaccines and elections. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that the Biden administration's contacts with social media companies did not violate America's First Amendment protections around free speech. The directive by the State Department ordered U.S. diplomats to investigate any claims of censorship which it described as "any government efforts to suppress protected forms of expression or coerce private companies to do the same", adding that the priority should be given to any incidents that impact U.S. citizens and companies. Examples could include arrests, court cases, property seizures and online suspensions, it said. "Posts should meet with government officials, businesses, civil society, and impacted individuals to report on censorship cases, including but not limited to those related to the DSA," the cable said. In March, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) specifically criticized DSA saying it was not compatible with America's free speech tradition. In May, Rubio threatened visa bans for people who "censor" speech by Americans, including on social media, and suggested the policy could target foreign officials regulating U.S. tech companies. "OVERLY BROAD CONTROLS" U.S. tech companies like Facebook and Instagram parent Meta have weighed in too, saying the DSA amounts to censorship of their platforms. Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, who also owns social media company X, was a leading adviser to the U.S. president before the two fell out, while the bosses of Amazon, Meta and Google-owner Alphabet (GOOGL.O) took prominent spots at Trump's inauguration in January. Rubio's directive takes particular aim at DSA's description of illegal content, saying it was expansive and told U.S. diplomats to advocate to get the definition of "illegal content" narrowed so that it would not curb freedom of expression, including in political and religious discourse. Another suggestion was to withdraw or amend the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, a framework under DSA, which the State Department said was setting "overly broad controls" on content in a way that was undermining freedom of expression. Other talking points included removing or reducing fines for non-compliance to content restrictions and not relying on "trusted flaggers", entities designated by national authorities to report illegal online content to platforms.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trade war: Donald Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs go into effect on dozens of countries today
US President Donald Trump's sweeping 'reciprocal' tariffs officially came into effect just after midnight on Thursday, hitting exports from over 60 countries and the European Union with higher import duties. The move marks a significant escalation in Trump's aggressive trade policy, aimed at penalising nations he claims have taken 'unfair advantage of the US.' 'IT'S MIDNIGHT!!! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TARIFFS ARE NOW FLOWING INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!' Trump posted on Truth Social, celebrating the implementation of the new tariffs. Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on all goods imported from India, citing national security and foreign policy concerns. The White House claimed that India's continued purchase of Russian oil, directly or indirectly, poses an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States. With this move, the total tariff on Indian goods entering the US will rise to 50%. The first 25% tariff will take effect on today (August 7), and the second round will begin 21 days later on August 27. Trump described the additional 25% tariff on India as a punishment for its continued purchase of Russian oil during the war in Ukraine. 'We're being very clear — if you buy from Russia, you'll face consequences,' Trump said during a press briefing earlier this week. The table above displays both the tariffs imposed on India—25% that took effect on August 7 and additional 25% set to take effect on August 27. Both Brazil and India have both been hit with a 50% tariff. The new tariff structure includes rates of 10% or more on goods from dozens of nations. Among the highest: Syria faces a 41% tariff, Laos and Myanmar 40%, and Switzerland 39%, after failing to secure a last-minute trade deal. Canada, one of the US 's closest trade partners, is now subject to a 35% duty tariff and the United Kingdom, however, will see a lower rate of 10%. Goods from Japan, South Korea, and the EU will be subject to a 15% duty, while products from Taiwan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and several others will face a 20% tariff. Some countries have managed to strike limited trade deals, reducing their tariff burden, while others including China and Mexico, remain in uncertain territory. China, currently in a fragile trade truce with the US , could face further hikes on August 12 unless new talks succeed. Trump had also threatened more duties if China continues to buy Russian oil. When asked whether China could face similar penalties for its trade in Russian oil, Trump said, "It may happen. I don't know, I can't tell you yet. But we did it with India. We are doing it probably with a couple of others, one of them could be China." Trump also reiterated his intention to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-made computer chips, urging tech firms to expand US manufacturing. The announcement came as Apple pledged a new $100 billion investment in American production, bringing its total US commitment to $600 billion. The tariff rollout had faced several delays, with Trump initially launching the plan in April, then pushing deadlines in July and again to August 7. The US President had vowed to negotiate 90 trade deals in 90 days but instead moved forward with the blanket tariff order. Trump noted that the tariffs are expected to bring billions of dollars into the US economy. "I think the growth is going to be unprecedented," he had earlier said, adding that while the exact revenue figures are not yet known, "we're taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs." With the new measures now active, trade tensions between the US and many of its key partners are expected to intensify, raising concerns about supply chain disruptions, rising costs, and retaliatory actions in the coming weeks. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays .
Mint
36 minutes ago
- Mint
Modi-Trump showdown over tariffs and Russia trade—explained in 9 charts
A day after the US imposed an additional 25% reciprocal tariff on India, on top of an earlier 25%, Prime Minister Narendra Modi signalled that India was unwilling to offer concessions in agriculture and dairy. 'India will never compromise on the interests of farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers," Modi said, speaking at the MS Swaminathan Centenary International Conference in Delhi, today. 'I know personally, I will have to pay a heavy price for it, but I am ready for it." And there is indeed a heavy price to pay. The additional US tariffs have put India at a significant disadvantage compared to its peers. While some sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals are shielded by exemptions, many labour-intensive segments such as textiles, organic chemicals and carpets will bear the brunt. These sectors were already subject to high tariffs under the most favoured nation (MFN) regime. Over the past month, India-US ties have deteriorated, largely due to a deadlock over a trade deal. At the heart of the impasse are Washington's demands for greater access to India's agriculture and dairy markets, in exchange for lowering reciprocal tariffs. While the initial 25% tariff in the absence of a deal was expected, the additional penalty, reportedly linked to India's trade with Russia, has drawn criticism. India has accused both the US and the European Union (EU) of hypocrisy for targeting it and Indian companies over continued trade with Moscow, even as those very countries maintain substantial commercial ties with Russia. Even after a sharp rise in India's trade with Russia (particularly on the back of oil), it has not surpassed the level of trade the EU has despite several sanctions since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. However, when it comes to energy imports specifically, India is buying more from Russia than the EU does. The US, too, despite having cut down Russian imports, has continued to purchase key commodities like fertilisers, palladium, and uranium. Asked about the continued US import of Russian uranium, Trump did not offer a proper explanation. 'I don't know anything about it. I have to check it out," he said on this, many experts have also pointed out the US's double standards in taxing India, while China buys more Russian oil. China has not come under fire yet, as its trade deal negotiations with the US may come to fruition. Given the current circumstances, India does have the option to stop purchasing oil from Russia. Before the Ukraine war, India barely purchased oil from Russia. The Indian government has, time and again, claimed that the shift was made only at the request of Washington to keep crude oil prices in check. In a way, India can shift back its focus to its main oil trade partners from pre-war times, such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, among others. According to Nomura estimates, the cost of such a switch would be around $1.5 billion, assuming an average discount of $2.2 per barrel. That's a relatively small figure compared to India's total exports of $87 billion. So while India could stop buying Russian oil at minimal cost, many believe the latest US penalties are not entirely about Moscow. Rather, they reflect Washington's frustration with India's refusal to make the market access concessions it has long sought, a position the prime minister reinforced in his speech today. The escalating tensions have left India in a tight spot. It must now carefully balance the protection of domestic markets with safeguarding the interests of exporters, especially in vulnerable, labour-intensive sectors.
