The competition law is one important pillar in the democratisation of data and in achieving the objective of the greatest good for the greatest number, he argued. However, when it comes to private entities, engaging in a digital business where there is a steady unstoppable flow of data and traffic, the same gets resourcefully calibrated to the sole benefit of these entities. In his submissions, Venkataraman mentioned that large data gateways like GST and UPI, which has data on crores of persons and entities, are run for the public good by public institutions. He also pointed out that the tying of apps had enabled Google to use its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into and protect other relevant markets. Such practices result in the imposition of unfair conditions and supplementary obligations, he said. The abuse of dominance by Google stands proved in every criteria laid under Section 4 of the Competition Act in terms of mandatory pre-installation, premier placement and bundling of core apps. Venkataraman emphasised that implementation of the remedies made by the CCI would go a long way towards having a market with greater freedom for all players, which would be in total sync with the principles of free competition rather than the 'walled garden' approach of Google. When the choice is the guiding principle of the competition law, Google's hegemony reduces both choice and competition.
This 'castle and moat' strategy is data hegemony, which means a big market player tends to get bigger and bigger while a small entrant struggles to attain a critical mass of users and user data.Īccording to him, data capture and data deployment are getting exploited and monetised as advertisement revenues.
On Thursday, Venkataraman submitted that Google had used its money-spinning search engine as the 'castle' and the rest of the other apps to play the defensive role of 'moat'. This ruling has been challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
0 kommentar(er)
