Jus Corpus Law Journal

Open Access Law Journal – Copyright © 2023 – ISSN 2582-7820

Editor-in-Chief – Prof. (Dr.) Rhishikesh Dave; Publisher – Ayush Pandey

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the
original work is properly cited.

The Unparalleled Dominion of Competition Law: A Global

Perspective

Madhav Sooda

a
NMIMS, Mumbai, India

Received 16 May 2023; Accepted 19 June 2023; Published 24 June 2023

__________________________________

The article delves into the complexities surrounding the enforcement of competition law in a global context. It comprehensively
examines the variations in competition law among different jurisdictions, shedding light on the diverse impact of legal systems,
cultural values, and economic conditions. Through in-depth case studies drawn from the European Union, India, and Brazil, the
paper illustrates both the successes and challenges encountered in the enforcement of competition law. It also highlights the hurdles
in achieving consistent application of competition law on a global scale, encompassing legal disparities, cultural influences, and
sociological factors. Moreover, the study provides a comprehensive overview of India's competition law framework and its
enforcement mechanism. By undertaking this research, a nuanced understanding of the enforcement landscape and the strategies
employed to address competition law violations can be gained, contributing to the ongoing discourse on global Competition policy.

Keywords: competition law, global enforcement, legal variations, cultural influences, competition law, enforcement.

INTRODUCTION

The goal of competition law, commonly referred to as antitrust law, is to encourage market
competition and stop corporations from engaging in anticompetitive behavior. To guarantee
that firms are working in a fair and competitive environment and those consumers are

32
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 4, JUNE – AUGUST 2023

benefiting from the efficiency and reduced costs that result, competition legislation is a crucial
part of a free market economy. Due to the interconnection of the world's economy, the
enforcement of competition law is essential in a global setting. Due to the growing
internationalization of business, anti-competitive actions taken in one jurisdiction can have a
major impact on both consumers and companies in other countries. Additionally, as a result of
economic globalization, there have been more cross-border mergers and acquisitions, which can
significantly affect competitiveness in the affected markets.

The way that competition legislation is applied varies across various countries depending on
their legal systems, cultural norms, and economic conditions. While other jurisdictions are still
establishing their legislation and enforcement systems, others have developed competition law
regimes. The European Commission and state competition agencies implement competition
legislation in the European Union (EU). The European Commission has been active in pursuing
actions against significant digital giants like Google and Apple. The EU's competition law
framework is largely considered one of the most rigorous in the world. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are responsible for enforcing
competition legislation in the United States. The FTC and DOJ have taken significant
enforcement actions against companies in various industries, including technology, healthcare,
and finance.1

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is in charge of upholding the legislation regarding
competition in India. Since its founding in 2003, the CCI has aggressively pursued complaints
involving anti-competitive behavior in a variety of industries. However, India's complicated
legislative structure and the drawn-out nature of the court system have made it difficult to
enforce competition legislation there. Due to variations in legal systems, cultural values, and
economic situations, ensuring uniform implementation of competition law in a worldwide
environment can be difficult. Additionally, companies may practice "forum shopping," when
they try to take advantage of variations in competition law regimes to avoid regulatory action.

1‘Bureau of Competition’ (Federal Trade Commission) <https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-

competition> accessed 12 May 2023

33
 SOOD: THE UNPARALLELED DOMINION OF COMPETITION LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Competition law can be applied differently in several countries, and it can be difficult to ensure
that the law is applied consistently. 2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 What are the key challenges in ensuring consistent application and enforcement of
competition law across different jurisdictions, considering variations in legal systems,
cultural values, and economic conditions?
 How can international organizations and competition law enforcement authorities
overcome the challenges of guaranteeing the uniform implementation of competition law
in a global context, taking into account the influence of cultural and sociological variables
and variations in competition law among different jurisdictions?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For this research paper, I have used secondary sources such as articles, official websites of
various governments, and various research papers.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPETITION LAW ACROSS DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS

Due to variations in legal systems, cultural values, and economic conditions, enforcing
competition laws across different jurisdictions can provide several issues. International
organizations like the International Competition Network (ICN) and the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) have been instrumental in encouraging the uniform enforcement of
competition law in various countries. To combat anti-competitive practices, member nations are
required to implement and enforce competition law under the terms of the WTO's Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TRIPS agreement also
offers a framework for international information sharing and technical support in the
implementation of competition law.

The ICN is a global network of competition authorities with the mission of fostering
collaboration and convergence in the enforcement of competition law. Model legislation and

2 ‘Our Vision’ (Competition Commission of India) <https://www.cci.gov.in/> accessed 12 May 2023

34
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 4, JUNE – AUGUST 2023

guidelines for the evaluation of mergers and acquisitions are only a few of the useful tools and
best practices that the ICN has produced for the implementation of competition law.3

It may be extremely difficult to uphold competition legislation under diverse legal systems.
Different jurisdictions' legal systems might differ in terms of their judicial procedures,
procedural laws, and substantive laws. For instance, judicial rulings and precedents play a
significant role in influencing competition law in common law countries like the United States,
but in civil law countries like India, competition law is predominantly implemented by
administrative bodies. Different countries may apply competition legislation differently
according to cultural values and economic conditions. The interests of corporations may be
given precedence in some countries above those of consumers or society at large due to cultural
norms. Additionally, the economic conditions of various countries might differ, making it more
difficult to execute competition legislation in some developing countries.4

Due to variations in legal frameworks, levels of economic development, and cultural values,
enforcing competition law has proven to be a considerable difficulty across international
borders. The success of competition law enforcement in reducing anti-competitive behavior and
advancing consumer welfare can be used to gauge its efficacy.

The European Union (EU) v Microsoft lawsuit is one instance of effective competition law
enforcement. Microsoft was found to have used anti-competitive practices by bundling its media
player with its Windows operating system, according to the European Commission, the EU's
competition watchdog. The Commission mandated that Microsoft give users a version of
Windows devoid of the integrated media player and make its interoperability data available to
other software developers. Microsoft challenged the ruling but finally followed the directive.

3 Djelic M L, 'International competition network' in Handbook of Transnational Governance-Institutions and

Innovations’ (2011) 19(4) Journal of Contemporary European Studies
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2011.645323> accessed 12 May 2023
4 Niamh Dunne, ‘Enforcement of Competition Law in Developing Countries: Challenges and Prospects’ (2015)

3(2) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement

35
 SOOD: THE UNPARALLELED DOMINION OF COMPETITION LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

The effectiveness of the EU's competition law enforcement in fostering competition and
consumer welfare is shown in this instance.5

The European Commission penalized Intel over $1.4 billion in 2009 for abusing its market
dominance in computer chips. The Commission determined that Intel had engaged in anti-
competitive behavior, including bribing a major store to carry only PCs with Intel processors
and providing rebates to computer makers only if they purchased all or almost all of their x86
CPUs from Intel. Intel contested the Commission's ruling, claiming that the regulator had not
provided sufficient evidence to show that its actions had damaged consumers and that its
actions were compliant with competition laws. However, in 2014, the General Court of the
European Union dismissed Intel's appeal and affirmed the Commission's ruling.6

The Intel case highlights the European Union's commitment to fostering competition in the
technology industry as well as the necessity of upholding competition law to stop monopolistic
players from limiting innovation and hurting consumers. The case also highlights the difficulties
in investigating and pursuing complicated antitrust investigations, which call for a lot of
resources and knowledge.

India, on the other hand, has had inconsistent results when it comes to enforcing competition
legislation. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) was founded in 2009 to carry out the
country's 2002-enacted competition statute. The CCI has been active in looking into and
punishing anti-competitive practices, but it has had a difficult time implementing its rulings.
Due to the convoluted judicial procedures and protracted appeals in the legal system,
enforcement has been slow and ineffectual. For instance, the CCI fined cement businesses for
cartelization in 2012, but the judgment was challenged in court, delaying the penalty's
implementation until 2016.7

5 ‘Antitrust: Commission fines Microsoft €561 million for non-compliance with browser choice commitment’
(European Commission) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_13_196> accessed 12 May
2023
6 Ibid
7 ‘Competition Commission of India slaps penalty on cement cartel’ (India Today, 21 June 2012)

<https://www.indiatoday.in/business/india/story/competition-commission-of-india-slaps-penalty-on-cement-
cartel-106605-2012-06-21> accessed 12 May 2023

36
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 4, JUNE – AUGUST 2023

Brazil's experience with cartelization in the banking industry serves as another illustration of
how ineffectively competition law enforcement operates. Although Brazil has a strong system
of competition legislation, there have been issues with its enforcement in the banking industry.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defence of Brazil, which oversees competition laws,
punished eight banks in 2011 for cartelization in the foreign currency market. The sanctions were
not implemented until 2016, five years after the first judgment, as a result of legal appeals of the
ruling.8

In conclusion, various nations have had differing degrees of success in enforcing competition
legislation. The case studies offered in this part show how elements including the legal
framework, cultural norms, and economic conditions have an impact on how well competitive
law enforcement is carried out. However, encouraging competition, innovation, and consumer
welfare requires effective competition law enforcement.

THE CHALLENGES OF ENSURING CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF COMPETITION

LAW IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT

Due to variations in legal systems, cultural values, and economic conditions, it can be difficult
to implement competition legislation between states. To encourage competition, innovation, and
consumer welfare in a globalized economy, it is essential to guarantee that competition
legislation is consistently applied.

The variations in competition law among various jurisdictions are one of the major obstacles to
achieving uniform execution of the law. The institutional structures, substantive laws, and
procedural norms of different competition law systems vary. For instance, while the US's
antitrust legislation seeks to defend competition as a means of improving consumer welfare, the
EU's competition law framework concentrates on combating anti-competitive practices and
increasing consumer welfare. These variations may make it difficult to enforce competition law
internationally. International organizations have created best practices and standards to
encourage uniformity in competition law enforcement across countries to solve these

8P L Lopes and A A Araujo-Junior, ‘Competition Law Enforcement in Brazil: A Mixed Picture’ (2019) 7(2) Journal
of Antitrust Enforcement

37
 SOOD: THE UNPARALLELED DOMINION OF COMPETITION LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

difficulties, such as the International Competition Network (ICN) and the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The influence of cultural and sociological variables on the enforcement of competition law is
another substantial obstacle to ensuring consistent implementation of the law. It can be
challenging to implement competition legislation similarly across various countries since
cultural and socioeconomic issues can affect how businesses compete and how consumers
engage. For instance, some nations approve certain commercial practices that would be deemed
anti-competitive in other nations. The manner in that competition law enforcement
organizations operate can also be influenced by cultural and sociological considerations.
Ineffective enforcement of competition laws may occur in some nations due to political
intervention or a lack of resources.

India is an illustration of a nation where social and cultural issues have affected the application
of competition law. Due to circumstances including the preponderance of family-owned firms
and the idea that enforcement of competition law is anti-business, the nation's authorities
charged with implementing competition law have encountered difficulties.9

Effective competition law enforcement may be hampered by differences in competition

legislation across various jurisdictions and the influence of cultural and sociological variables.
However, by creating best practices and standards, and cooperating across national boundaries,
international organizations, and competition law enforcement authorities may solve these
issues.

OVERVIEW OF INDIA'S COMPETITION LAW AND ITS ENFORCEMENT

India is a major player in the global economy, and its system of competition law is a crucial part
of its economic strategy. An outline of India's competition legislation and its implementation
will be given in this section. The Competition Act, of 2002, which aims to foster and preserve
market competition, safeguard consumer interests, and guarantee free commerce, governs
India's competition legislation. The Act forbids anti-competitive agreements, punishes the

9A. Bhardwaj and S Kedia, ‘Cultural and Social Issues Affecting Competition Law Enforcement in India’ (2019)
7(2) Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 337

38
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 4, JUNE – AUGUST 2023

exploitation of a dominant position, and controls mergers and acquisitions that can harm market
competition. The major institution tasked with upholding the Act is the Competition
Commission of India (CCI).10

India's competition legislation has been actively enforced by the CCI, which has also levied
significant fines on businesses that engage in anti-competitive behavior. For instance, the CCI
fined Google for abusing its dominating position in the internet search industry INR 135.86
crores (about USD 18 million) in 2018. The CCI has also been involved in merger and acquisition
regulation, and it has approved several well-known mergers subject to stipulations that
guarantee market competition.11

The implementation of competition legislation in India, however, has several difficulties. The
idea that competitive law enforcement is anti-business is one of the major difficulties. Some
companies have resisted, and political influence in the implementation of competition
legislation has increased as a result of this impression. The CCI has responded to this issue by
launching outreach and education initiatives to spread the word about the advantages of
competition legislation for both firms and consumers. 12

The preponderance of family-owned firms can make it difficult to identify and prosecute anti-
competitive practices, which is a major obstacle to the enforcement of competition legislation in
India. Since family-owned firms sometimes have deep ties to their suppliers and clients, it can
be challenging to evaluate whether their actions are anti-competitive.

The CCI has been aggressive in upholding the Act and has penalized businesses for participating
in anti-competitive behavior with significant fines. The idea that India's competition law
enforcement is anti-business and the preponderance of family-owned firms are only two of the
difficulties it encounters.

10 A Nagaraj, ‘Competition Law in India: An Overview’ (2015) 11(2) Journal of Competition Law & Economics
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/48702957> accessed 12 May 2023
11 ‘Competition Commission of India imposes Rs. 135 crore penalty on Google for bias in search results’ (Scroll, 08

February 2018) <https://scroll.in/latest/868055/competition-commission-of-india-imposes-rs-135-crore-penalty-

on-google-for-bias-in-search-results> accessed 12 May 2023
12 Aditya Bhardwaj and S Kedia (n 9)

39
 SOOD: THE UNPARALLELED DOMINION OF COMPETITION LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

The cement cartel case is among the most significant and successful enforcement cases in India.
For creating a cartel to control the price of cement, the CCI fined 11 cement businesses INR 6,307
crores (about USD 1 billion) in 201213. The case was notable because it marked the first time the
CCI had levied a penalty of this magnitude and because it showed the CCI's dedication to
upholding Indian competition law. For abusing its dominating position in the market for
internet search advertising, Google was fined $21 million in 2018 by the Competition
Commission of India (CCI). The CCI concluded that Google had used unfair limitations on
publishers and conspicuous placement of its products and services in search results as examples
of its anti-competitive behavior. Google appealed the CCI's ruling, claiming that the agency had
erroneously interpreted the law and that its actions had complied with all applicable
competition laws. Google was required to pay the penalties when the Competition Appellate
Tribunal (COMPAT) affirmed the CCI's ruling in 2020. The Google case underscores the
difficulties in applying Indian competition legislation, particularly in the digital industry.

Digital platforms have expanded quickly, which has resulted in the rise of dominating
businesses that may restrict competition with their market dominance. However, there are
several difficulties that India's competition authorities must overcome, including a lack of clear
legal precedents and a lack of resources and competence to fully probe complicated instances.

CHALLENGES SPECIFIC TO ENFORCING COMPETITION LAW IN INDIA

India's economic and legal system provides numerous particular difficulties for the enforcement
of competition legislation. This section will go through some of the major obstacles the
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has to overcome to uphold the nation's competition
laws. The predominance of state-owned companies (SOEs) in various important industries is
one of the main obstacles. Because SOEs frequently have monopolistic or dominating positions
in marketplaces, it can be difficult for private companies to compete fairly. Additionally, SOEs
benefit from many advantages and exemptions, which makes it challenging for the CCI to look
into and bring charges of anti-competitive behavior. To put SOEs under the jurisdiction of

13 Competition Commission of India slaps penalty on cement cartel (n 7)

40
 JUS CORPUS LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 3, ISSUE 4, JUNE – AUGUST 2023

competition law, the CCI has begun conversations with the government after realizing the
difficulty.14

The broader public and business community's ignorance of competition law is another obstacle.
The requirements of the Competition Act of 2002 and the repercussions of anti-competitive
behavior are not well known to many enterprises. This ignorance can breed a culture of non-
compliance, making it challenging for the CCI to identify and look into instances of anti-
competitive behavior.

India's complicated legal framework must be navigated to enforce competition legislation. The
Competition Appellate Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court are only a few of the
courts where the CCI's rulings can be contested. The legal proceedings may be expensive and
time-consuming, which causes delays in the application of competition legislation.
The CCI's investigative and enforcement capabilities are also constrained in comparison to other
countries' competition bodies. For instance, the CCI cannot sanction people, and the fines it does
issue on businesses are frequently less severe than those levied by other authorities. The CCI is
aware of this difficulty and has suggested changes to the Competition Act to enhance its
authority and bring it into line with global best practices.15

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this article has covered the global applicability of competition law and the
difficulties in ensuring its uniform implementation in a global setting, with an emphasis on
India. The article has emphasized the function of international organizations in fostering the
uniform application of competition law, the difficulties in doing so under various legal systems,
and case studies of both the successful and failed applications of competition law in various
nations.

The article has also covered the difficulties that are unique to enforcing competition law in India,
such as the predominance of state-owned businesses, lack of knowledge of the law, navigating

14 DK Sikri, ‘Competition law enforcement in India: issues and challenges: Opening statement from the
Competition Commission of India’ (2017) 5 Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
<https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnx008> accessed 12 May 2023
15 D Chakraborty, ‘India's Competition Law Enforcement: Successes and Challenges’ (2020) 8(4) Journal of

Antitrust Enforcement

41
 SOOD: THE UNPARALLELED DOMINION OF COMPETITION LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

the complexities of the legal system, and the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) limited
investigative and enforcement powers. The possibilities for the implementation of competition
law in a worldwide environment look bright in the future. The demand for collaboration among
competition authorities from various jurisdictions has increased as a result of the expansion of
digital platforms and the escalating globalization of markets.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the implementation of competition legislation is a difficult

and complicated undertaking that necessitates collaboration among several parties, including
businesses, legal professionals, and competition authorities. The prospects for the future are
encouraging, and initiatives to foster international collaboration can assist solve these
difficulties, even though it is difficult to ensure uniform implementation of competition law in
a global environment.

42