This blog argues that, in the age of AI, market definition must adapt, separating hype from structural reality and ensuring that claims of “nascency” do not become convenient cover for an anti-competitive market. 

India’s existing competition framework, functioning on a reactive, case-by-case approach, is not suitable for tackling structural and collective dominance in rapidly changing cloud markets.

The shift to an effects-based approach under Section 4, solidified by Schott Glass and Google 2023 & 2025, aligns India with the EU's standards, ensuring only actual conduct with proven or likely competitive harm is penalized.

India is at a crossroads where other jurisdictions have moved rapidly to align competition law with sustainability commitments since 2023, India risks falling further behind by continuing the antithesis of sustainability and competition.

Prior to the amendment of the Act, hostile takeovers and other time sensitive acquisitions were difficult to implement due to the existence of a standstill obligation. The insertion of Section 6A is a step towards facilitating hostile takeovers in the future.

In this article, the author analyzes the newspaper industry of India from the lens of competition law to unravel the challenges and opportunities affecting newspapers in adapting to the dynamic environment.    

The Schott Glass ruling requires a structured, effects-based test in line with international best practice and appropriately directs focus away from form-based claims toward demonstrating competitive harm.

The article analyses the role of AI as a new frontier in the digital market space.

While the CCI maintains rigorous enforcement against gun-jumping violations, its approach in each case exhibits several variations.

The article challenges the ruling in Independent Sugar by examining the statutory provisions and the judicial approach to the issue.

[ Himanshi is a student at Dharmashastra National Law University. ] The Committee on Digital Competition Law released the   draft Digital...

A mere private settlement cannot deprive the CCI from investigating concerns raised regarding the market structure at large.

The commitment mechanism will also provide entities with the opportunity to avoid incurring heavy penalties.

While Google might currently appear insulated from regulatory action, the landscape for big-tech companies could shift significantly.

Deterrence under the Act is what makes the leniency, commitment and settlement provisions attractive.

The incorporation of antitrust laws into sustainability presents a multidimensional challenge.

It is pertinent for the CCI to be vested with a significant authority to regulate the happenings in the digital market ecosystem.

The decision in INSA v. ONGC, if not overturned, would become a significant setback for competition jurisprudence in India.

The author aims to examine the implications of the lesser penalty regulations on India’s antitrust landscape.

A collaborative approach must be taken by the CCI and the Controller for SEP disputes involving anti-competitive behaviour.

This piece attempts to analyse the effects of CJEU’s judgement on the powers of Bunderskallmt.

The article analyzes the Microsoft-Activision deal from the perspective of new amendments to the Competition Act 2002.

It is evident that the current competition law does not lack provisions for tackling the unique challenges posed by digital markets.

The jurisprudence with regard to anti-competitive practices and IPR is still at a very nascent stage.