Digital markets are core to the argument that competition policy should shift from ensuring consumer welfare to contributing directly to economic goals. Governments pursue various economic goals, including fostering innovation and growth, supporting SME participation, and attracting foreign investment. Traditionally, competition policy focused on ensuring consumer welfare, indirectly contributing to economic goals. As geopolitical tensions rise and the digital economy continues growing, some argue that competition policy should contribute to economic goals more directly. In Europe, for instance, proponents of the EuroStack propose to combine competition policy with procurement, trade, and industrial policy to build a sovereign European digital stack. To outline the context of this proposed shift, this briefing details how governments worldwide are tackling digital competition concerns through policy and enforcement.

Much of the debate on digital competition focuses on novel policy approaches. The Digital Policy Alert has documented 348 digital competition policy developments across the globe since 2020. These developments comprise laws (135), binding executive orders (122), and non-binding guidelines (92). Notably, these policies most frequently establish rules on unilateral conduct (158) or merger control (75), but also establish new powers for competition authorities (72) and limits regarding anti-competitive agreements (32). While a majority of these policies are adopted or in force (204), a considerable amount of proposals are currently under deliberation (53). 

Policy approaches range from cross-cutting regimes to tailored sector-specific rules. Cross-cutting regimes that apply to all sectors of the digital economy are more frequent (211), and salient. The best-known example is the European Union's Digital Markets Act, which regulates gatekeepers that core platform services and includes rules regarding both unilateral conduct and mergers. Other cross-cutting regimes include the United Kingdom’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act and proposals currently under deliberation in the Republic of Korea, Brazil, and India – namely, the Digital Competition Bill. The commonality between these policies is that they apply to a designated scope of firms based on criteria such as market share, average users, or presence across digital markets. Other policies restrict the scope of affected firms based on their business model, most frequently e-commerce (49), social media (33), app stores (28) and search (20). For example, policies targeting app stores specifically include Japan’s Mobile Software Competition Act and the Republic of Korea’s amended Telecommunications Business Act.

The bulk of government activity, however, concerns enforcement. The Digital Policy Alert has documented 592 digital competition enforcement developments across the globe. This comprises enforcement cases concerning specific firms (517), including investigations and lawsuits, as well as general inquiries (75). The targets and contents of these enforcement developments provide insight into governments’ priorities in addressing competition concerns in digital markets. In terms of targets, enforcement cases target providers of e-commerce platforms, app stores, and online advertising. More specifically, the companies mentioned most often in enforcement cases are Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft. In terms of the specific obligations governments enforce, cases regarding unilateral conduct dominate (346), followed by merger control (185), and few cases on anti-competitive agreements (43). 

The consequences of enforcement cases vary across borders. Governments often apply traditional enforcement methods in digital market cases, issuing fines for prohibited unilateral conduct and limiting transactions that violate merger control rules. Recent examples of fines being issued for prohibited unilateral conduct include cases against Google in Türkiye and Indonesia. Regarding merger control, different governments often analyse the same transactions, for instance the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft. Governments have blocked fewer transactions recently, but tied approvals to various commitments. China, for instance, approved the acquisition of Ansys by Synopsys, but required certain divestments and prohibited discriminatory pricing and bundling for ten years. Such remedies are gaining traction worldwide, as governments substitute or complement fines with commitments to interoperability and transparency, among others. 

How a government approaches digital competition policy and enforcement is a matter of domestic strategy. The choice between an ex-ante and an ex-post regime, between a cross-cutting and a sectoral regime, and between a traditional or novel enforcement approach are all subject to intense domestic debate. Where to focus enforcement resources is an equally strategic choice, with attention shifting to sectors deemed critical to competitiveness and national security, such as AI. Complicating the decision-making process, domestic competition regimes are increasingly subject of trade negotiations. 

Nevertheless, international cooperation on digital competition is both feasible and necessary, especially in enforcement. Governments worldwide are addressing similar competition concerns in digital markets. Enforcement cases often scrutinise the same behaviours by the same firms. Governments across continents have started seizing the opportunity for international coordination. Recently, declarations to cooperate on competition enforcement were issued by the European Union and Japan, and by Canada and the United Kingdom. Broadening such cooperation is imperative, especially as calls to align competition with broader economic goals increase.

India is deliberating a Digital Competition Bill. The Committee on Digital Competition Law’s March 2024 proposal would introduce an ex-ante competition regime for “Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises”. Recent reports suggest that a comprehensive market study into digital markets will be conducted before the legislation is advanced. In 2023, an amendment of the Competition Act introduced new value thresholds for merger control. Subsequently, the combination regulations and a series of rules, on criteria for combinations, exemptions, and minimum asset and turnover value, entered into force. India also streamlined its merger review process in 2023.

The bulk of India’s activity on digital competition concerns enforcement, in line with global trends. The Competition Commission of India actively enforces existing competition rules, with particular focus on Google’s unilateral conduct. The CCI recently approved Google’s settlement proposal regarding Android televisions and is currently investigating Google’s app store policies in relation to real-time gaming, its billing system in general, and its news aggregation service. In 2023, the Delhi High Court directed the CCI to accept applications for non-compliance proceedings against Google regarding its billing system. The CCI previously fined Google INR 1337.76 crore regarding the mandatory pre-installation of the Google Mobile Suite, among other practices, and INR 936.44 crore regarding self-preferencing in the Google Play Store. 

The CCI also investigates other large technology companies. Its investigation into WhatsApp’s privacy policy led to a INR 213.14 crore fine and a five-year ban on cross-service user data sharing for advertising purposes, although the ban was temporarily lifted by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The CCI has also been investigating Apple’s App Store payment system for potential abuse of dominance. Finally, the CCI conducts merger control, recently approving the subscription of shares of Flipkart by Shoreline (owned by Google).