India’s antitrust watchdog is sounding the alarm about the growing power of big tech companies. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has last week (February 25) introduced changes to its penalty recovery process for better procedural clarity and effectiveness. The amendments set specific timelines for the payment of penalties and outline conditions for extending deadlines or installment payments. Additionally, amid the growing concerns over predatory pricing tactics by major e-commerce platforms, the competition regulator has (on February 17) released draft guidelines to define how costs should be assessed in pricing practices to create a clear framework for evaluating anti-competitive pricing across sectors.
As a small startup that has witnessed the consequences of market dominance by a few large gatekeepers, Truly Madly sees this as a significant step towards actually enabling meaningful accountability and enhancing procedural clarity and efficiency.
“The new regulations would be particularly crucial towards addressing a fundamental problem in our online ecosystem—where market leaders often stonewall enforcement in drawn-out appeal proceedings. Competition cases against some of the tech giants are a perfect example,” Snehil Khanor, CEO, Truly Madly told Storyboard18.
In spite of CCI directives and penalties since 2022 in multiple cases, enactment and recovery of monetary penalty remains a procedural logjam.
Indian start-ups hope this move is a first step amongst many more that the CCI brings in to regulate unchecked dominance in digital markets.
“The CCI’s new penalty recovery regulations mark a critical shift in India’s competition framework, ensuring that monetary penalties are not just theoretical but effectively enforced through structured timelines, interest provisions, and dedicated recovery officers. Legal victories against influential market players must have real financial consequences, and this move strengthens regulatory accountability,” added Hitesh Uppal, CFO, Magicbricks.
In November last year, CCI had proposed amendments to its penalty recovery regulations, aiming to streamline the process of collecting fines for violations of the Competition Act. The draft was put out for public consultation and comments were received from seven stakeholders. Subsequently, certain changes were made to the draft regulations.
As per the gazette notification dated February 25, “A demand notice issued under sub-regulation (1) shall provide a time period of not less than 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of order of the Commission as contained in the order of the Commission, to the enterprise or person concerned, to deposit the penalty in the manner specified in the said notice,”
Further, it added that a demand notice issued shall provide a time period of not less than 60 days from the date of receipt of the Commission’s order to the enterprise or person concerned, to deposit the penalty.
It is to be noted that on November 18, 2024, CCI passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs 213 crores on Meta for misusing its dominant position through WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of India’s Competition Act.24 Jan 2025. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on January 16, 2025)admitted the petitions filed by Meta Platforms and Whatsapp against the CCI order. In 2022, CCI imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on Google for anti-competitive practices concerning its Play Store policies.
That apart, CCI’s latest draft guidelines to define how costs should be assessed in pricing practices, is set to replace the 2009 norms introduced before digital markets became dominant. Stakeholder comments on the draft are invited until March 19.
A draft of the proposal, titled the CCI (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025 is set to create a clear framework for evaluating anti-competitive pricing across sectors.
The competition watch dog released the draft under section 64(2)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, which empowers the regulator to prescribe cost benchmarks for assessing anti-competitive practices. Under the rules, Section 4(2)(a)(ii) prohibits predatory pricing as an abusive conduct. The new guidelines are said to have a significant impact on the fast-growing e-commerce industry.
Under the proposed norms, in determining costs, the commission or the director general may seek assistance from experts, and enterprises disputing the cost determination can request an independent expert review at their own expense.
In the past, multiple stakeholders have raised concerns about the predatory pricing or zero pricing model set by digital commerce players. Recently, All India Consumer Products Distributors Federation (AICPDF) alleged that quick commerce firms were raising funds through deep discounting practices and predatory pricing, causing pressure on small retailers and distributors.
E-commerce giants like Amazon and Flipkart have also been facing severe criticism over their pricing strategies, with accusations of driving out competition through artificially low prices.
Uppal noted that CCI’s recently introduced draft regulations on predatory pricing provide much-needed clarity on cost assessments, reinforcing fair competition and preventing anti-competitive pricing strategies by digital gatekeepers.
“These initiatives signal a strong regulatory intent to foster a level playing field in India’s evolving digital economy,” he concluded.
Previously, the Committee on Digital Competition Law ( formed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to examine the need for an ex-ante regulatory mechanism for digital markets in India) has also emphasised the need to address anti-competitive conduct by existing large digital enterprises through policy measures, while ensuring not to throttle the growth of emerging Indian digital enterprises that can grow into global players.