The “winner takes all” nature of digital platforms – which over the last decade have become inextricably linked to the way society functions – should worry us. Amazon and Google serve as particularly relevant examples of this trend. Starting off as an innocuous online bookstore, Amazon has today turned into a veritable “everything store”. Google not only rules the roost in the search engine market by leaps and bounds, it is today an unavoidable trading partner in virtually every facet of life, especially when it comes to doing business. A Yale Law Journal piece published in 2017, aptly titled ‘Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox’, pointed out the many special features of online platforms. Not only do these platforms tend to have a “winner takes all” nature, these are also often multi-sided, the resultant network effects (a condition where the value of a product or service increases in proportion to the increase in the number of its users) further enhancing their dominance. For these giants, competition is conspicuous by absence. The last two decades have seen tremendous innovation in nearly every field, including the functioning of markets and the conduct of business. Competition law, because of its positioning at the juxtaposition of law, economics and policy, is uniquely susceptible to even subtle variations in market dynamics. Oil was the most coveted resource in the 19th and 20th centuries and it was the behemoth Standard Oil’s (mis)demeanors and monopolistic behaviour which led to the formulation of the Sherman Act, the world’s first anti-trust (competition) law in 1890. Circa 21st century, “data” has displaced oil as the most valuable commodity. Unsurprisingly, tech titans Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft are the four most valuable listed companies in the world today. Digital markets are testing settled regulatory principles like never before and their many peculiar features are raising a number of hitherto unanticipated challenges. Given the complexity of the issues at hand, it is pertinent to keep in mind the basic tenet of competition law, which is to preserve competition in the markets. Because digital markets reap rich rewards for consumers, the potential anti-competitive effects tend to get somewhat overlooked. However, as argued by the author of ‘Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox’, a 21st century analysis of competition law and digital markets should necessarily be centred around harm to competition in the markets, rather than harm to consumers. The preamble of India’s Competition Act, 2002, states that its objectives are to first prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, second, to promote and sustain competition in markets, third, to protect the interests of consumers and finally, to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets. The legislative focus on preserving competition and free flow of trade in the markets, rather than maximising consumer welfare is therefore abundantly clear. This distinction between “harm to consumers” and “harm to competition” is particularly relevant when it comes to online platforms and digital markets. Indeed, practices which are arguably good for consumers, may not be beneficial for competition in the market. Nowhere is this more true than digital markets and there is no better example of this trend than the retail giant Amazon. While its next day delivery options and unbelievable discounts are great news for consumers, these have spelt doom for many traditional brick and mortar businesses ranging from Whole Foods to Toys R Us. In India, Amazon operates on huge losses, while continuing to rain offers on consumers. Similarly, home grown Flipkart, which was founded in 2007, shows a similar trend of continued losses, together with increasing revenues. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), much like most competition regulators in the world, has refrained from adopting an overtly heavy-handed approach towards digital markets. In 2014, while investigating a complaint against online platform Snapdeal, the CCI noted that online and offline markets were merely different channels of the same market and not two different relevant markets. The CCI displayed similar reluctance to interfere in “nascent digital markets” while examining a complaint against taxi aggregator Ola. While acknowledging that network effects and heavy funding are some of the many advantages of enterprises operating in online platforms, the CCI rejected allegations of abuse of dominance and predatory pricing against Ola. The Indian e-commerce industry today involves cut-throat competition and intense funding wars. The business strategy seems to be to keep growing the consumer base (even if sustaining heavy losses in the process) till all competition is eliminated. Because of the high likelihood of concentration of market power in a single enterprise in the near future, this is an area which needs close scrutiny. It may not be too long before the CCI is beckoned again to look into anti-competitive practices in Indian e-commerce and any such enquiry should be carried out with the larger goal of preserving healthy competition in the market. On February 8, 2018 the CCI imposed a fine of Rs 136 crore ($ 21.17 Million) on search engine leader Google for “search bias” and abuse of its dominant position. This became by far, the CCI’s most landmark decision on digital markets. Coming almost six years after the filing of the initial complaint, this is on the heels of the European Union’s fine of €2.4 billion on Google for favouring its shopping service. The first strike in the lengthy battle against Google was a complaint filed by Consim (rebranded as Bharat Matrimony) in 2012, which was later clubbed with a similar case filed by Consumer Unity and Trust Society (CUTS).The “gate-keeper” like nature of some online enterprises, predatory pricing, entry barriers, privacy and protection of the vast reserves of “big data” the online giants have are some issues of concern.Google’s massive dominance in the search engine market being a no-brainer, the important question which the CCI had to answer was whether Google had “abused” its dominant position or not. The most critical finding against Google was that it had created an uneven playing field by favouring its own services and had leveraged its strong position in the online search market to enter and enhance its position in ancillary markets (e.g. Google Maps, Google Flights, etc.), conduct which had harmed competitors as well as consumers. The CCI notably articulated Google’s “special responsibility as the gateway to the internet”. In the same breath, it has also spelt out how over-regulation and hasty interventions can lead to stifling of developing technologies. This conundrum is a recurring theme throughout the almost 200-page order. The prolific growth of technology, digital markets and e-commerce has impacted lives of people in innumerable positive ways, even more so in developing countries. Therefore, CCI’s reluctance in being overtly interventionist is understandable. However, considering that digital markets and competition is one of the most hotly debated regulatory issues today, a more nuanced discussion on these topics, and guidelines on the application of competition law principles to digital markets is the need of the hour. Unlike other major competition law regulators, the CCI has thus far not initiated the kind of in-depth discussion that these issues merit. The “gate-keeper” like nature of some online enterprises, tendencies of predatory pricing, barriers of entry for potential new entrants, opportunities of vertical integration (what Google did with Google Maps), privacy and protection of the vast reserves of “big data” the online giants have increasing access to, cross-leveraging of advantages gained in one market across distinct lines of business, etc. are only some of the issues which demand particular attention. With multiple cases involving Standard Essential Patents, FRAND licensing terms, digital marketplaces, cab aggregators, etc. at various stages of pendency in Indian courts (and many more likely to come up in the near future), the CCI needs to be digital-ready. This is an opportune time for this dialogue, a process which must include not just the CCI and other sectoral regulators but also draw upon the wisdom of other stakeholders and similarly placed international bodies.Joyjayanti Chaterjee is an associate research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.