Digital Competition Law: Catch-All Proposal, Exemptions, And The Miss | NDTV Profit

Summary

The video discusses the proposed Digital Competition Bill in India, aiming to regulate big tech companies like Amazon, Google, and Flipkart. The conversation revolves around the necessity and potential impact of the bill, with experts expressing concerns that it might stifle innovation and growth in India's digital economy. They debate whether the existing Competition Act is sufficient or if an ex-ante framework is needed to address anti-competitive behaviors more swiftly. The discussion also touches on the bill's provisions for significant market players, penalties for non-compliance, and the possibility of exemptions, comparing India's approach with that of the European Union's Digital Markets Act.

Takeaways

• 📜 The discussion revolves around the proposed Digital Competition Law in India, aimed at regulating anti-competitive practices among digital giants.
• 🏛️ Nisha Oboy argues that the existing Competition Act is sufficient to regulate digital players, citing the CCI's ability to investigate and penalize them.
• 🌐 The proposed law is compared to European regulations, with a focus on creating an ex-ante framework to quickly address the dynamic nature of digital markets.
• 🚀 A concern is raised about the potential stifling of innovation and growth in India if the law is implemented too restrictively, especially given India's status as a leader in innovation.
• 🛑 The concept of 'significant systemically important digital enterprises' (SSDE) is introduced, which would be subject to additional regulations under the new law.
• 💡 The new law could potentially penalize companies twice for the same offense, once under the Competition Act and again under the Digital Competition Act.
• 🔒 The draft bill does not cover 'killer acquisitions', which are acquisitions designed to eliminate future competition, a point of contention given their prevalence in the digital space.
• 🔄 There is a debate on whether the law should protect the process of competition or specific competitors, with the latter not aligning with the principles of antitrust.
• 📊 The proposed law includes a broad range of digital services, from social media platforms to e-commerce and aggregator services, all of which would fall under its purview.
• 🔄 The discussion highlights the need for a balance between regulation and fostering an environment that encourages growth and innovation in the digital sector.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the proposed digital competition law in India?

The main purpose of the proposed digital competition law in India is to check anti-competitive conduct and abuse in the digital world, aiming to make the digital market fairer and more competitive.

Why does Nisha Oboy believe that India does not currently need this new law?

Nisha Oboy believes that India does not need this new law because the existing Competition Act is sufficient to regulate digital competition players, as evidenced by the CCI's ongoing investigations and imposed penalties on various digital platforms.

What are the potential drawbacks of introducing the digital competition law according to the discussion?

The potential drawbacks include stifling growth and innovation in the digital economy, and the possibility of creating a level playing field that may curtail the growth of digital players upfront through precautionary antitrust measures.

What is the concern regarding the overlap between penalties under the Competition Act and the proposed digital competition law?

The concern is that entities could be penalized twice for the same offense under both the existing Competition Act and the proposed digital competition law, leading to duplicity of proceedings and potentially increased uncertainty and chaos.

What is the significance of the 'significant systemically important digital enterprises (SSDE)' concept in the proposed law?

The SSDE concept is used to identify large digital platforms that could have significant influence over the market. These enterprises would be subject to additional regulations and obligations to prevent anti-competitive practices.

How does the proposed law address the issue of 'killer acquisitions'?

The proposed law does not specifically address 'killer acquisitions' as the committee believes the existing deal value threshold under the Competition Act is sufficient to address concerns related to anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.

What are the 'core digital services' mentioned in the proposed law, and how do they relate to regulation?

Core digital services are specific types of digital services offered by a platform that could have significant market influence. Each core digital service would be regulated differently based on its nature and the platform's influence, with tailored obligations for each.

Why is there a debate on whether the proposed law should include exemptions similar to those in the European Union's Digital Markets Act?

There is a debate because the European Union's Digital Markets Act provides exemptions for 'gatekeepers' under certain conditions, allowing them to demonstrate that a particular service should not be regulated despite the overall entity's size. The proposed law in India does not fully adopt this approach, leading to discussions on whether such exemptions should be included.

How does the proposed law's approach to data and user consent differ from the current Competition Act?

The proposed law has predefined obligations regarding data and user consent for designated SSDEs, requiring explicit consent and prohibiting certain data practices, which is a more proactive approach compared to the current Competition Act that investigates and penalizes after the fact.

What is the role of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under the proposed digital competition law?

Under the proposed law, the CCI would have the authority to designate enterprises as SSDEs, regulate their conduct, and impose penalties for non-compliance. It would also have the power to customize regulations for each core digital service provided by SSDEs.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Introduction to the Digital Competition Law in India

The video script begins with a discussion on the proposed Digital Competition Law in India, aimed at regulating the conduct of digital giants such as Amazon, Google, and Flipkart. The law seeks to prevent anti-competitive behavior and is compared to similar regulations in Europe. The conversation features Anika Kakar and Nisha Oboy, legal experts from Sir Amaran Mangaldas and Trilegal, respectively. They debate whether the current Competition Act is sufficient or if a new law is necessary to address the unique challenges of the digital market.

05:02

🏛️ The Need for a Digital Competition Law

Nisha Oboy argues against the necessity of the new law, asserting that the existing Competition Act is adequate to regulate digital platforms. She cites ongoing investigations by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and suggests that the proposed law might stifle growth and innovation. Anika Kakar, on the other hand, considers the imminent introduction of the law and discusses the potential impact on innovation in India. The conversation highlights the debate over whether the law will protect competition or specific competitors.

10:03

🚀 Implications of the Digital Competition Law

The discussion delves into the practical implications of the Digital Competition Law, focusing on the designation of 'significant scale and size of digital economy' (SSDE) enterprises. These enterprises would be subject to specific obligations to prevent self-preferencing, data misuse, and other anti-competitive practices. The panelists explore how the law could affect various digital services, including social media, search engines, and online intermediation services.

15:05

💡 Concerns and Overlaps with Existing Competition Act

Advantia and Nisha express concerns about potential overlaps between the Digital Competition Law and the existing Competition Act. They discuss the possibility of entities being penalized twice for the same offense under both laws. The conversation also touches on the lack of clarity regarding how the two statutes will operate in tandem and the potential for increased legal complexity and uncertainty.

20:05

🌐 Learning from International Models and Addressing Killer Acquisitions

The panelists compare India's Digital Competition Law with international models, particularly the European Union's Digital Markets Act. They discuss the concept of exemptions for certain digital services and the need for a more comprehensive approach in the Indian context. Additionally, they address the issue of 'killer acquisitions,' where large companies acquire smaller competitors to eliminate potential threats, and the adequacy of the current deal value threshold to regulate such acquisitions.

25:06

🔍 Final Thoughts on the Draft Digital Competition Bill

In the concluding part of the discussion, the panelists share their final thoughts on the draft Digital Competition Bill. They emphasize the importance of rationality and proportionality in the enforcement of the law and the need for clarity to avoid chaos and uncertainty. The conversation also highlights the importance of stakeholder consultations in shaping the final version of the bill.

Keywords

💡Digital Competition Law

The Digital Competition Law refers to the proposed legislation in India aimed at regulating anti-competitive practices in the digital market. This law is designed to prevent the abuse of dominance by large digital platforms. In the script, the discussion revolves around the necessity and implications of such a law, especially in the context of digital marketplaces, food aggregators, and cab aggregators.

💡CCI

CCI stands for Competition Commission of India, which is the regulatory body responsible for enforcing the Competition Act in India. It investigates anti-competitive practices and ensures a fair market. The script mentions CCI's role in the context of ongoing investigations and its ability to impose penalties on digital players, highlighting its current effectiveness and potential challenges with the new law.

💡Anti-Competitive Conduct

Anti-competitive conduct refers to practices that unfairly limit competition in a market, often by larger entities that abuse their market power. The script discusses the need for a predetermined framework to check such conduct, suggesting that the proposed digital competition law aims to provide this framework and make the digital world fairer.

💡Ex-Ante Regulation

Ex-ante regulation is a form of pre-emptive regulation where rules are set before any action is taken to prevent potential future harm. In the script, the discussion around the proposed digital competition law indicates a shift towards ex-ante regulation to quickly address issues in dynamic digital markets, as opposed to ex-post regulation which acts after the harm has been established.

💡Significant Financial Thresholds

Significant Financial Thresholds are financial benchmarks used to identify enterprises that could potentially have a significant impact on the market. The script mentions these thresholds as criteria for designating a company as a Systemically Significant Digital Enterprise (SSDE), which would then be subject to additional regulations under the proposed law.

💡Self-Preferencing

Self-preferencing is a practice where a company favors its own products or services over those of competitors on its platform. The script discusses how the proposed law would regulate such behavior, ensuring that digital platforms do not unfairly promote their own services at the expense of others.

💡Data Consent

Data Consent refers to the permission granted by users for the collection and use of their personal data. The script highlights the importance of obtaining relevant consent in the context of data regulation under the proposed law, emphasizing the need for transparency and user control over their data.

💡Tying and Bundling

Tying and bundling are practices where the sale of one product or service is conditioned on the purchase of another. The script mentions these practices as potential areas of concern under the new law, where such behavior by digital platforms could be restricted to promote fair competition.

💡Core Digital Services

Core Digital Services are fundamental services provided by digital platforms that have a significant influence on the market. The script discusses how the proposed law would tailor regulations for each core digital service offered by an SSDE, ensuring that each service complies with specific conduct standards.

💡Killer Acquisitions

Killer Acquisitions refer to the practice where a dominant company acquires a potential competitor to eliminate competition. The script mentions that the proposed law does not cover such acquisitions, which has been a point of discussion, as it could allow dominant players to consolidate their market position without scrutiny.

Highlights

Introduction to the digital competition law proposed in India to regulate anti-competitive conduct in the digital world.

Discussion on whether the existing Competition Act is sufficient to regulate digital players in India.

Argument that the new law is not needed as the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been effective in regulating digital players.

Concerns that the proposed law might curtail growth and innovation in India's digital economy.

Debate on whether India should follow Europe's approach to digital regulation.

Explanation of the consumer welfare standard and its role in competition law.

Discussion on the need for a time-bound statutory framework for competition cases.

Concerns about the potential for entities to be penalized twice under the new law and the existing Competition Act.

Details on the proposed law's focus on systemically significant digital enterprises (SSDEs) and the criteria for designation.

Explanation of the obligations that come with being designated as an SSDE.

Discussion on the definition of core digital services and how they will be regulated under the new law.

Concerns about the lack of exemptions for SSDEs in the draft bill compared to the European model.

Debate on whether the draft bill should cover 'killer acquisitions' and the adequacy of the current deal value threshold.

Argument that the draft bill's catch-all provision may empower the commission more than necessary.

Final thoughts on the draft digital competition Bill and its potential impact on India's digital economy.

Transcripts

[Music]

hi there this is NTV profit and you're

watching the fine print Amazon Google

flip cart Apple Uber Ola zomato swiggy

and the likes dig digital Giants of e

marketplaces food aggregators cab

aggregators search engines will soon

have to deal with to the new law in

India and that's the digital competition

law proposed to check abuse in the

digital world the committee submitted

its report last week saying we need a

predetermined framework to check

anti-competitive conduct so will this

proposed law make digital world fairer

to answer that I have with me aanka

kakar partner at sir amaran mangaldas

and Nisha oboy from Tri legal Nisha

aanika welcome to the fine print Nisha

I'll start with you in your opinion we

don't need this new law why is

that than SP the reason that we don't

need this new law is because the

competition Act is already sufficient to

regulate digital competition players as

is evident the CCI has had over 25

ongoing investigations whether it's food

delivery platforms whether it's cab

aggregators whether it's search engines

the CCI has been able to effectively

investigate these players despite them

being digital players and has in certain

instances imposed penalties and

directions on Behavior so it's not that

the regulator cannot regulate them the

reason why they're looking at this

particular proposed digital competition

bill at the moment is because just like

Europe they want an exante framework on

the basis of the fact that

investigations and appeal processes are

timec consuming digital markets are

Dynamic and tip quick in favor of a

Winner Takes It All approach

unfortunately at the stage where India

is at today on its Economic Development

priority should be growth Innovation and

investment and a Level Playing Field

which allows players to grow not curtail

their growth upfront by virtue of

precautionary antitrust economics which

is what an ex Anil law is and therefore

this is not the right time to introduce

this proposed digital competition bill

Europe might be number one in terms of

Regulation but India is very much number

one in terms of innovation and therefore

we should not blindly copy what's

happening in Europe here in our economy

at this stage sure Nisha aanda and I

should have done in the introductions

you guys represent some of the largest

player uh players who are probably uh

meant to be covered uh in under this

proposed law uh but I'd request you to

not sort of probably speak on behalf of

your clients today but as sort of of

practitioners of the law uh to try and

understand uh you know the need of this

new law uh and how will it will it be

implemented Nisha I take your point that

you know we are probably not at the

stage where uh a developed jurisdiction

like Europe is but under the current

competition act uh you know the CCI has

to look at whether uh The Entity is

dominant or not uh you have to delate

relevant market and expert councils like

yourself and avantia while just get to

in a minute um will you know move Heaven

and Earth to make relevant markets as

broad as possible so that your clients

don't end up being called dominant and

then uh you know uh the abuse then sort

of quickly Fizzles as well um so help me

understand that you know we've seen like

you said you need to give a Level

Playing Field but it is not a Level

Playing Field right um there are in most

sort of sectors or rather spaces that I

called out we have clear sort of

Market leaders right and for the smaller

guys the startup guys um maybe some of

these were startups at one point

themselves um it takes sort of a lot to

get user attention it takes lot to sort

of move the market share needle um in

that space uh or in that reality um

doesn't a new law a targeted law make

sense so the reason why it doesn't and

this is not wearing a client hat but

from a competition law perspective the

entire ideaa of the current competition

Act is based on the notion of the

consumer welfare standard where you look

to protect the process of competition

you do not look to protect a competitor

right so when you're going towards the

digital competition Bill and an exante

regulation what you're looking at is

protecting not the process of

competition and not fair outcomes right

but to protect specific competitors

which is not the purpose of antitrust

what is needed yes in terms of expost

which the CCI is already looking at even

for digital economy players the delay R

lies in the investigation the delay lies

in the overburdened courts right what is

needed perhaps is what is in the IBC you

need a statutory framework which is time

bound and where you have a specialized

competition appell tribunal reinstituted

or specialized competition benches so

that these competition cases whether

they're digitally economy or not do not

then languish for a 5 to 10 year period

trust me as Misha somebody who's covered

IBC very closely the dirty doesn't are

still not resolved let me get aanka here

aanka Nisha has made a very strong case

uh that you know um we don't need this

law at this stage uh but the reality is

that you know once the committee has

submitted rep its report the bill is out

uh we sort of post that point where we

can argue uh against the need of this

law

um come in here very quickly first on

your quick thoughts on what you made of

the um approach that the committee took

in drafting this new

bill um so well um no I have to agree

with you uh I think it's now imminent um

I don't know if it makes sense for us to

argue uh that we don't need this law um

I expect like the rest of the world uh

we will see uh this law uh take effect

eventually the question is how and in

what form um again I wasn't part of the

committee so I don't have the details on

its approach uh byin but from what I can

make out uh there's a lot of reference

to um International uh sort of

developments and um and equally the

committee has sort of uh considered um

the the multiple cases uh that I think

the committee had the benefit of having

insight into uh because these are fairly

public investigations run uh by the

CCI um so that's about it on the

approach but um I think to add to what

Nisha said I have to say that uh you

know this law may be imminent but uh

we've had enough jurist Prudence now in

the competition space to know um what

the possible pitfalls may be um we also

don't know whether this law will

actually uh heighten innovation in India

I mean we we've acknowledged that we are

an Innovative economy uh but uh I think

my fundamental problem and not wearing

any hat here with uh any sort of

Regulation is that does it is it an

enabler or is it something that's

reigning some parties in uh in the hope

that others will grow uh because the big

guys rained in uh um I'm not I'm not

philosophically sure um that approach

will will serve the economy or the

country uh very

well okay AA I mean I'm guessing some of

the fears that you've called out don't

come to be true and we don't stifle

Innovation uh Nisha I think the question

to be asked at this point is that um

while you know the committee has listed

several behaviors that this law will

sort of seek to look out for and then

maybe uh

you know punish if I can use the word or

penalize companies who are exhibiting

that behavior can you explain to me in

Practical terms what are some of the use

cases of this law um you know

preferencing is one um broad area that

you know the committee has mentioned

steering anti- steering Pro uh sort of

behavior is another one use of public

data to then profile uh individuals and

do targeted ad advertising this all

seems um sort of behavior that you and I

as consumers of marketplaces aggregators

fac on a day-to-day basis right today if

I go on Instagram and start looking for

a particular uh sort of product um I can

then see on my Google search on my

Facebook search um all of those

companies Etc coming back to me in my

face that hey look this is the product

that you were looking for on X website

but now uh they show up in my sort of

feed and other side social as well

because a lot all of these are parent

companies and you know Sister concerns

so that data is clearly getting shared

um can you articulate for me what are

some of the behaviors prevalent today in

the market that this law seem or this

proposed law uh will then check so first

to be clear there is nothing that this

new proposed law will check which isn't

already being checked under the

competition act in terms of ab of

dominance I take your point but

I'm I'm just saying that that Behavior

takes longer to check in the competition

act so hopefully this will be a shorter

route so no what what happens here is

basically once you're designated as a

significant ssde right once you're

designated as an SSD bases Financial

thresholds Financial reach or even if

you don't meet either of these criteria

if the CCI is of The View on 16 factors

the last of which says bases any factor

that the CCI considers that you have

significant influence and and you're a

digital economy player which effectively

offers a core digital service then the

CCI has the ability now to regulate you

right so that regulation basically means

certain obligations will apply to you

irrespective of whether you do something

or you don't do something from the start

once you're designated an ssde you have

to ensure that you don't do self-

preferencing you have to ensure that in

terms of data you have the relevant

consent you again don't preference your

particular lines and you don't

disadvantage your business users you

don't do tying and bundling right you

don't do anti- steering and therefore

all these obligations are predefined and

pre-identified they also have in place a

set of nine core Digital Services which

will apply to each of these designated

SSD and here is where they've moved from

a principle based approach because the

principles are these obligations which

are clear across the board but for each

each core digital service right because

as a platform you could be providing

more than one core digital service and

there could be more than one player in

this space who's offering that core

digital service who has significant

influence so to say and therefore each

of their regulation will be tailored

right so the commission one onone will

then customize it which then is a hybrid

between eu's DM the digital Market act

and UK's proposed dmcc Bill to see what

level of conduct this particular

Enterprise for that core digital service

needs to comply with basis the number of

its users in terms of time and manner of

compliance right and this applies across

the board because it applies to Social

Network platforms it applies to search

engines it applies to online

intermediation services which cover the

gamut from food delivery to cab

aggregators to online travel agencies

right so literally every aspect of doing

business is for a digital economy player

now will pretty much fall within this

score digital service and these score

Digital Services have been defined in a

schedule with a residuary power that

they can be extended and every 3 years

the central government in consultation

with the CCI will reevaluate them right

but I'm uh right so the you use cases to

be clear right would would literally

travel the gamut right you want to take

a cab covered you want to order from an

online food delivery platform covered

right you want to order from an

e-commerce platform covered you want to

book your flight tickets on an online

travel agency and your your hotels all

covered right you want to do a search on

the web covered so the entire gamut

stands covered today under these score

Digital Services just to close the loop

on some of the references that Nisha

made uh the draft bill says that the the

proposed law will apply to systemically

significant digital Enterprises and uh

this is sort of a concept that has uh

probably cre in in this proposed law

from the uh it rules that we saw you

know made public last year uh there's a

dual test of significant financial

strength and significant spread to

identify these SSD but there is also U

sort of a long list of factors uh that

can qualify you as an ssde uh but I'll

come to that in just a bit avantia come

in here on U your concerns about some of

the overlap that you saw in terms of

penalties that uh can come um you know

through the competition act and once

this law or rather this bill becomes a

law um through this bill through through

the digital competition act as well so

for the same offense uh your concerns

are in the shape and form this bill has

been proposed um an entity can be

penalized

twice exactly um and uh this is because

there is no exclusion to um uh you know

once you're identified as an

ssde um uh post that uh there is no

restriction on a possible claim also

being initiated under section four of

the competition act which is the abuse

of dominance which is in fact um the the

provision under which uh most of um the

investigations by the CCI in the digital

space have been uh initiated did um my

problem with that is that you um what

are we envisioning here we are

envisioning two statutes you have the

competition act and then you have uh

this draft bill which regulates digital

competition um and then uh what is going

to happen is that parties have to uh

self assess um and are required to

report to the commission that yes we

qualify for uh the criteria that have

been listed

and we are um an ssde so designate us so

and then they have to comply with

chapter three of uh this stat this draft

statute and if they don't comply then

there is a potential penalty of up to

10% of the global turn over which as we

know is not a mean sum um at the same

entity could be proceeded against under

section four of the competition act for

potentially exactly uh the same Behavior

Uh that it violates chapter 3 for

allegedly and uh and then there is that

process of the DG and the exact same

mechanics uh the investigating whether

or not there is an abuse of dominance

and as you said by Asin earlier on

whether in fact the Enterprise is

dominant itself uh which I think should

be easy if it's declared itself an SSD

then perhaps uh there is um the high ch

chance that it'll also be uh found to be

dominant um and well it's a self

assessment it's declared uh you know

it's it's um sort of reported to the

commission saying um well I meet this

criteria so the question is then does it

become dominant or not and yes lawyers

will get very busy but I'm sure that's

not uh the aim of this

legislation uh but we will get busy

arguing uh that merely being a n ssde

does not make us dominant in said

relevant Market uh we will argue the

very same arguments to a great extent uh

saying that we are no we are compliant

with chapter 3 and no we're not abusing

our dominance and ultimately the very

same regulator the very same individual

members of the competition Commission of

India will make a finding on whether or

not I have violated uh you know the

digital competition act and whether or

not I have also uh while I was doing

that abused my dominance um there is no

provision in the law as it reads right

now that there will be some form of

reasonableness and proportionality to

this uh because there's going to be a

multiplicity a duplicity of proceedings

and will there also be a duplicity of

penalty um and in the long ter if I can

come in here that you could be penalized

based on the proposal under the uh draft

digital competition Bill 10% of your

Global turnover and so is under the

competition act so theoretically

speaking you could look at up to 10%

under uh the existing statute and the

proposed one well uh this is 10% of the

preceding Financial year whereas under

the competition act the 10% threshold

applies to an average of three years

turnover so no it's not the same thing

and uh it does the statute at least

doesn't read as if it were covering the

same subject um and therefore there has

to be some provision and um I know that

the committee uh deliberated on this

subject and it was uh you know some of

uh the commission's own submissions have

been that uh you know there are hurdles

to um you know enforcement under the uh

competition act and that um uh you know

uh it's better that they also have this

um

ssde uh identified by themselves so that

they're able to you know

more emphatically enforce uh competition

act um there's also some discussion on

the fact that the commission should keep

in mind uh when it's running these two

parallel proceedings um sitting as a

judge in both proceedings uh that it

might penalize uh the same party uh for

violation of the digital competition act

and so therefore it must keep that in

mind

when it you know penalizes under the

competition act but this is not in the

statute that's something the committee

discussed and I believe that as part of

the public comments that will no doubt

be submitted um I think some amount of

rationality in the way that this law uh

if it does come into force is brought

into force uh I think is going to be

very very important because what you

don't want is uncertainty what you don't

want is chaos and may have uh Nisha one

gripe that you have in the uh in the

bill is the inspiration we have drawn

from the digital markets act which is uh

the law in the European Union uh that

provides for exemptions for quote

unquote Gatekeepers um which has not

been to the full extent uh you know uh

taken adopted here uh to a certain

extent the committee has said that the

exemptions should be encoded in the

statute uh but they've not gone the full

Hall explain to me uh why is that a

concern so in Europe if you qualify as a

gatekeeper basis quantitative and

qualitative criteria you're

automatically not designated as a

gatekeeper to whom all of the dos and

don'ts and the obligation apply you have

the ability despite qualifying

quantitatively as a gatekeeper once you

self-report to build a case for an

exemption before the European commission

so for example Microsoft was able to get

it for Bing where you're able to demonst

demonstrate that in that particular

service despite you as an overall entity

being a gatekeeper that service is not

large enough for you to be regulated

that does not exist in our current

version of the draft competition bill it

is hoped that by way of public comments

since we are copying from Europe we do a

fullsome job and don't just cherry pick

and therefore have the ability where an

ssde whose core digital service is

minimal

should really not be regulated for that

core digital service okay aanka what are

some of the use cases in the Indian

market for this exemption to your

mind uh well that's uh difficult to say

but uh again it could be uh and I don't

I don't want to uh take names but it

could be uh you know an ancillary to say

um the fact that you provide U you know

you also provide delivery services

when you are a cab abator um so will

that service uh should not be qualified

as a core digital service it could just

be that um it remains to be seen where

this might be used but I I want to add

that it's I mean I I don't think we have

to copy only from Europe we can copy

from other places uh where it's uh you

know it's likely beneficial but even in

the UK dmcc uh where the behavior

benefits users or where there is a

counterveiling impact that is the

benefits outweigh uh the so-called harm

uh there to there is a possibility of an

exemption uh I believe that there is uh

some rational uh in in incorporating

such exemptions into our statute as well

all right aanka the big miss that uh we

just talked about and I want to come to

you uh for that is uh the proposed bill

is not going to cover killer

Acquisitions and the committee says the

deal value threshold in the competition

Act is uh sufficient to address concerns

on that front I looked up certain

numbers on what the killer Acquisitions

recently have been and actually the idea

emanated from the standing uh committee

report which said that uh these are the

deals that are escaping uh CCI scrutiny

so we put a 2,000 CR uh sort of

threshold for that U if you look at

certain numbers in terms of uh what the

killer Acquisitions have been there have

been many in this space that have been

less than 2,000 CR uh mra's acquisition

of Jong was 470 crores ola's acquisition

of taxi for sure was 1,200 crores most

recently BYU acquired white hat Junior

for 400 crores U do you believe that the

committee has uh you know rightly

omitted mergers and Acquisitions from

the purview of this new

law um I mean I'm I'm interested and I

don't represent any of the parties and

didn't work on any of the transactions

that you stated but I'm interested on

why we believe these are killer

Acquisitions at all merely because I'm

acquiring a competitor uh doesn't mean

that I'm engaging in a killer

acquisition a killer acquisition is my

understanding is intended to uh ensure

that um you know the competitor uh does

not provide a service that uh that could

uh in the future compete with my own uh

mere consolidation uh or buying of

competitors is not a killer acquisition

and and if it is then well you do have

uh you know so-called killer

Acquisitions even in the non-digital

space that go unscrutinized and the

answer has always been uh that uh well

the commission can always pursue an

investigation under the abuse of

dominance Provisions uh under the ACT um

I believe the same argument would apply

for um so-called killer Acquisitions

also this is exactly what the I'll use

the Kinder word that you mentioned aanka

which is consolidation uh which is to

say that okay fine you are acquiring uh

you know a competitor uh which then will

make you probably the only player in

some of the markets uh worth uh of of

any sort of size that the user would

want to engage with in those cases like

you mentioned that currently we don't

probably look at it in the offline space

but now we are deliberating on a new law

so to say that look we made a mistake

that there to be able to copy that

mistake here and continue making it uh

why leave it okay the CCI can always say

that okay we're not looking at m&a and

suddenly an m&a comes which uh really

wants to be looked at it should be the

regulator should be at least empowered

to look at it right right so um yeah

let's let's look at that then maybe we

found why the catch wall exists uh you

know the catch wall that we were talking

about under section 33 of the draft uh

competition Bill uh where it says that

even if uh none of the criteria are met

uh by uh by an Enterprise the commission

is at Liberty to uh declare that it is

in fact uh an ssde perhaps that is why

the catchall is although I I argue that

it is unknowingly been put there uh

perhaps in an uh you know in a bit to

empower the commission uh more than was

necessary given that we are targeting

objective criteria and and uh you know

in the identification of our Gatekeepers

in India but uh sure I mean an enabling

provision u i fully agree should exist

um I'm not sure it's a Miss I believe

that uh the drafts persons have

considered the deal value threshold and

they feel that that's the one that's

going to catch digital um Acquisitions

that uh that may lead to a consolidation

that creates a possible Monopoly under

the law uh

I fully agree with you however that uh

that threshold uh that has been

determined by the commission is not

really uh or or rather the ministry is

not really um the appropriate uh

threshold um but then India has very

high thresholds in merger control where

uh uh we it's it's been well

acknowledged that our merger control

thresholds are amongst the highest in

the world so we'll perhaps never

continued with this benevolence in the

proposed law as as well avantia Nisha

many thanks for joining me here with

your quick takes uh uh on the draft

digital competition Bill uh and of

course as this uh Bill makes his journey

to a law we'll remain on top of it after

stakeholder consultation the final

version as well thank you for joining us

here on NDTV

[Music]

profit