In May 2024, the Saint Pierre International Security Center (SPCIS) launched the “Global Tech Policy at the Forefront” series, featuring conversations with leading experts on the impact of emerging technologies—such as AI, blockchain, biometrics, and robotics—on global governance and public policy.
On December 31st, we had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Ritam Arora, an accomplished academic and researcher specializing in competition law, corporate governance, and the regulation of digital markets. She holds a Ph.D. in Competition Law from The University of Hong Kong (HKU), where her research focused on competition issues arising from the dominance of online platforms in multi-sided markets. Dr. Arora’s work critically examines the intersection of big data, digital platforms, and competition policy, with a particular focus on how data-driven intermediaries influence market dynamics and consumer welfare. She has contributed to numerous scholarly publications and conferences, addressing the challenges regulators face in promoting fair competition in the digital economy. Her current research explores antitrust concerns surrounding algorithmic pricing, data monopolies, and the role of artificial intelligence in shaping competitive behavior in platform markets.
Our conversation with Dr. Ritam Arora explores the legal challenges posed by Big Tech platforms and the need for innovative regulatory strategies to address their market dominance. She shares her insights on the limitations of current competition laws, the importance of tailoring regulations to local contexts, and the unique challenges faced by developing countries in fostering fair competition and innovation in the digital economy.
SPCIS: Hi Ritam, it’s a great pleasure to have you here!
Ritam Arora: Thank you so much, Naikang. It is an absolute pleasure for me as well.
SPCIS: As I understand, your research focuses on online platforms like e-commerce and social media that leverage big data. Could you explain what makes these platforms so powerful and how they are reshaping the competition landscape?
Ritam: My research focuses on e-commerce, social media, and search engine platforms and their operations in India primarily. I chose these platforms since they are key drivers of the digital economy. These platforms offer users significant advantages, including savings on travel costs, access to a wide variety of options, improved social interaction transcending physical barriers, personalized results, and others.
Over recent years, a select few of these platforms have secured a dominant and lasting position, leading to a highly concentrated marketplace. The reason behind this is features like access to large data troves, network effects, feedback loops, high switching costs, and lock-in effects, which are exhibited by these platforms. These features, individually or in combination with each other, add new dimensions to the market power of online platforms, enabling them to act as gatekeepers. However, this gatekeeping power is frequently exploited by these platforms, as they engage in various anti-competitive practices that have a detrimental impact on the market structure.
SPCIS: What are the biggest legal challenges posed by Big Tech companies—often structured as digital platforms? From a competition law perspective, what concerns you the most?
Ritam: The primary issue that concerns me is that platforms are only held accountable for anti-competitive practices if they hold a dominant position within a relevant market. Platforms that do not meet the statutory threshold for dominance are not considered liable, even if they engage in similar anti-competitive practices.
Based on this provision, competition authorities increasingly recognize the serious potential harm associated with high levels of concentration in digital platforms, especially when carried out by dominant entities. However, my research highlights that this provision has its limitations when it comes to regulating abuses within digital markets. Large online platforms, even if not classified as dominant, can strategically position themselves as gatekeepers, establishing entrenched and enduring market positions.
SPCIS: With a few major tech companies controlling access to markets and data, are current competition laws strong enough to address these monopolies, or do we need new regulations?
Ritam: I believe there is a need to explore alternative remedies, such as the adoption of ex-ante regulations. However, the adoption of such regulations in the context of developing economies in the Global South should not simply involve replicating models from other countries, particularly those of the developed nations in the Global North.
Instead, the decision to implement ex-ante regulation must be informed by the economic and institutional foundations of the specific economy. This means that the need for and the type of ex-ante regulatory framework should be tailored to the institutional context and developmental stage of the digital market in each jurisdiction. Blindly following international consensus should be avoided, as policy duplication can have a detrimental impact on innovation and competition and reduce the incentives for investors to invest.
SPCIS: What might be the unique challenges faced by developing countries in preventing market dominance or monopolies by Big Tech companies?
Ritam: There are several challenges that developing countries face in regulating big tech companies, including, but not limited to, issues like understaffed competition authorities. Regulators often lack the necessary expertise or resources to fully grasp the complexities of digital markets, algorithms, and data-driven competition.
For example, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) would benefit from recruiting more staff and onboarding data scientists to help tackle cases specific to digital markets and effectively address digital infringements.
Another major challenge is underfunding, which limits the capacity of competition authorities to operate at full efficiency. Without adequate financial resources, these authorities struggle to carry out in-depth investigations, enforce regulations, or keep pace with the rapid evolution of digital markets. Furthermore, local tech players face significant barriers in competing with foreign big tech companies. The large user base, powerful network effects, and large capital reserves of global platforms create an environment where it's truly difficult for local startups or smaller companies to compete.
SPCIS: India is actively developing its AI industries and AI governance strategies. How would you compare India’s approach with those of the EU or the US? Are there any unique characteristics that define India’s approach?
Ritam: The objectives of AI governance strategies in India share similarities with approaches adopted by the EU and US in terms of fostering innovation and addressing ethical concerns. However, what sets India’s approach apart is its emphasis on inclusive development, tackling issues such as educational inequality, poverty, healthcare access, and boosting productivity in the agricultural sector.
India has introduced its own AI leadership vision, branded as #AIforAll, with the objective of utilizing the full potential of AI in alignment with the requirements and aspirations of India. However, the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act, the first and most comprehensive AI legislation globally, along with the US emphasis on AI research, aims primarily at fostering economic growth and building a robust innovation ecosystem based on their respective priorities.
SPCIS: In what way is cross-border cooperation needed for regulating digital platforms? Should global harmonization of these regulations be a priority?
Ritam: Cross-border cooperation is essential for regulating digital platforms, given their global reach. Such collaboration can help prevent regulatory arbitrage, where platforms take advantage of differences in national regulations to avoid competition oversight.
While achieving global harmonization may be beneficial, it could be challenging due to differences in institutional capacity and economic development across countries. However, adopting a set of common principles—such as ensuring fair and transparent practices, limiting data usage, restricting anti-steering, and prohibiting self-preferencing—could perhaps serve as a strong foundation for international cooperation in regulating digital platforms.