Taming the Titans: Rethinking Regulation in the Digital Age

Introduction: Power of the Digital Giants Beyond Products

In today’s world, the biggest companies do not sell oil or steel—they control data. Digital titans such as Meta, Google, and Amazon have built empires by offering free services like social media, search engines, and messaging apps. But behind the scenes, these platforms collect vast amounts of data about their users—what we like, search, say, and even where we go. This data is then used to power algorithms that keep users hooked, predict behaviour, and sell targeted advertising.

Unlike traditional companies that grow by selling more products, these digital platforms thrive on a cycle: the more users they attract, the more data they collect, and the more powerful they become. This network effect gives them a significant advantage over new or smaller competitors, who simply cannot compete without access to similar volumes of data. As a result, a few companies control most of the digital world, raising serious concerns about competition, privacy, and freedom of choice. To protect competition and consumer rights, this essay argues that regulators must modernise laws to tackle data-driven dominance and ensure fair digital markets.

The Meta Case: A Wake-Up Call for India

In a landmark move on 18 November 2024, India’s Competition Commission (CCI) fined Meta ₹213.14 crore for abusing its dominant position in the digital messaging and advertising markets. The case centred around a controversial privacy policy update rolled out by WhatsApp, a company owned by Meta. This update forced users to agree to sharing their data with other Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram—on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. The CCI found this deeply problematic because users had no real choice, and it unfairly boosted Meta’s advertising capabilities by combining data across platforms.

Meta quickly challenged this decision and won a partial stay from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Although they had to deposit half the penalty, they were temporarily allowed to continue sharing user data. The case is still ongoing, but it has already highlighted a crucial gap in Indian law: our competition rules were not designed to handle data-driven monopolies. They were made for industries where prices, not data, showed who had power.

The Google Parallel: Another Goliath Under the Scanner

Meta is not the only digital giant facing scrutiny. In 2022, Google was fined ₹1,337.76 crore for using its dominance in mobile phones to force companies to pre-install its apps. This gave Google an unfair edge, especially in developing countries like India, where Android is the most used operating system. Again, the court upheld the fine, showing that regulators were beginning to understand the tricks used by tech giants to maintain dominance.

Globally, Google has faced multiple investigations. The United States, European Union, and even Australia have accused it of unfair practices—from favouring its own services in search results to locking in advertisers and app developers with restrictive contracts. All of this points to a troubling pattern: once a digital giant takes the lead, it uses its power to stay there, pushing out competitors and limiting consumer choice.

Data: The New Currency of Control

What oil was to the 20th century, data is to the 21st. But there is a key difference: oil can be used only once, while data can be collected, reused, and analysed endlessly. In digital markets, this gives enormous power to those who gather the most data. And with billions of people using Meta’s and Google’s services every day, they have access to an unimaginable amount of personal information.

This data is not just used to improve services. It fuels powerful algorithms that predict user behaviour, suggest content, and display advertisements tailored to each individual. The result? Users spend more time on these platforms, generate even more data, and become increasingly dependent on them. This creates a “walled garden” effect, where it’s hard for users to switch to other services—even if better or more ethical options exist.

Traditional Laws vs Digital Realities

Competition laws in many countries, including India, are outdated. They were designed when industries competed on prices, and market dominance could be measured in simple financial terms. But in the digital age, dominance comes from data, not prices. Many services are free to use, which confuses regulators who still look for “price manipulation” as a sign of monopoly.

For example, WhatsApp is free. So is Google Search. But these platforms make billions by collecting user data and selling access to advertisers. They do not raise prices—but they raise barriers for competitors, restrict user freedom, and often ignore privacy concerns. This means regulators need new tools and definitions to assess market power in the digital world.

Learning from the West: Global Echoes and Shared Struggles

India is not alone in this fight. The European Union has introduced strong laws like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to control how digital giants operate. The DMA requires “gatekeepers” like Meta and Google to offer fair access to competitors, prevent self-promotion, and ensure user consent for data use. GDPR, on the other hand, gives users more control over their personal information.

The United States, too, is pursuing legal action against Meta for its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that these purchases were made to kill competition. In Germany, authorities ruled that Meta violated competition and privacy laws by combining user data from various platforms without consent. These global efforts show a growing recognition: the digital world cannot be left unchecked.

The Regulatory Toolbox: New Tools for a New Era

Experts have proposed a “toolkit” approach to regulate digital giants, much like using different tools for different kinds of repairs. Here’s what this might look like:

• Hammer and Axe (Structural Solutions): Break up companies or block mergers that reduce competition. For example, force Meta to separate Facebook from Instagram or WhatsApp if they use combined data unfairly.
• Weights and Measures (Behavioural Rules): Make sure platforms do not give special treatment to their own services or set unfair terms for users and developers. In the UK, a new Digital Markets Unit is being created to do exactly this.
• Safety Mask and Gloves (Data and Privacy Protections): Treat data as a public trust. Make companies get real, informed consent before using it, and limit how much they can collect and combine.
• Scaffolding and Ladders (Infrastructure Changes): Promote decentralised platforms, open standards, and public alternatives so users are not trapped in a handful of corporate ecosystems.

Each of these tools targets a different kind of harm, from privacy violations to unfair competition. Together, they can make digital markets healthier and more democratic.

India’s Opportunity and Responsibility

India, with its booming digital economy and young, tech-savvy population, stands at a crucial crossroads. The Competition Act of 2002 is solid in many ways but was built for a different era. To truly regulate digital giants, India needs to redefine what it means to be dominant, consider “data monopolisation” as a key indicator, and allow for more proactive action before harm is done.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 is a step forward—it focuses on how companies collect, store, and use data. But it does not coordinate enough with the CCI to tackle overlapping issues. A better system would bring these bodies together, sharing information and acting jointly to address digital dominance from all angles—competition, consumer protection, and privacy.

India could look to the European model, where competition and data laws work hand-in-hand. For instance, forcing large companies to let smaller ones access basic platform features or user data (with consent) could level the playing field.

Challenges Ahead: Expertise, Coordination, and Global Rules

Even with good laws, enforcement is hard. Many regulators lack the technical expertise to understand how algorithms work or how data flows across platforms. Meanwhile, tech companies have deep pockets and top-tier engineers, giving them a major advantage in legal battles.

There’s also a risk of what’s called the “revolving door”—where officials move between government roles and tech companies, sometimes weakening enforcement. To counter this, India needs stronger institutions, better-trained regulators, and clear rules to avoid conflicts of interest.

Moreover, digital platforms are global, but regulation is mostly national. A company can move its headquarters or data servers to avoid strict rules. This is why international cooperation is vital. By forming digital agreements and sharing information, countries can prevent “jurisdiction shopping” and create fairer digital markets worldwide.

Conclusion: Toward a Fairer Digital Future

The digital age has brought incredible progress—but also new kinds of power and new forms of inequality. Giants like Meta and Google have reshaped how we communicate, shop, and think. While their innovations have helped billions, their unchecked dominance threatens competition, user choice, and even democracy.

India’s actions against Meta and Google are bold first steps, but not the finish line. To truly tame the digital titans, we must rethink our laws, redefine market power, and rebuild our regulatory tools. It’s not just about punishing bad behaviour—it’s about building a digital world that is fair, open, and inclusive. Only then can we ensure that the benefits of technology are shared by all, not hoarded by a few.