TITLE: BIG DATA AND ITS IMPLICATION ON COMPETITION LAW

A Research Presented to

9Th NLIU- TRILEGAL SUMMIT ON CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL

LAWS,
2024.

By:

Mr. Shubhank Khare

(PhD Research Scholar, Jagran Lakecity University)

&
Akshansh Negi
Th
(4 Year, BBA LLB, Indore Institute of Law)
 “BIG DATA AND IT’S IMPLICATION ON COMPETITION LAW”

ABSTRACT
With the advancement of technology, the debate between digitalisation and Big Data are getting
more heated. With the introduction of new digital business models. Data based digital models are
becoming a concern for the legislations. Specially, when the topic of concern is of two different
subjects of law. This Article talks about data privacy and how it has found it-self into the world of
Competition Law, with a detailed analysis on investigation order given by CCI in regard to the
privacy policy of WhatsApp. The article also tries to understand whether the data privacy can get a
place under the realm of competition law or not in near future and tries to give way forward as what
could be done.

KEYWORDS : Technology, Digital Business, Legislations, CCI, Data Privacy, Competition.

1
1) INTRODUCTION
As far as India is concerned, the four corners of the Constitution serve as the inspiration for the
country's decision to adopt and create its own Anti-Trust law. In order to advance socialism in the
country, the founding fathers of the country saw fit to enshrine in Article 38 and 39 of the Directive
Principles a mandate for future governments to cultivate and enact laws that advance the welfare of
the Indian people by safeguarding and maintaining social, economic, judicial, and political order,
among other things. The goal here is for the State to make every effort to lessen disparities in terms
of wealth, status, opportunities, and facilities. This way, resources for everyone are distributed in a
way that minimizes their concentration in the hands of a select few and maximizes equitable
distribution for the benefit of all. Based on these directives, the Indian government passed the
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) in 1969 in an effort to safeguard the
interests of its citizens by allocating financial resources in a way that would allow for the free
interaction of competing forces and the greatest possible material advancement.
But after 1991, as India harpooned to adopt a laissez-faire economy and as foreign and domestic
investment and competition flooded the nation, it became clear that the MRTP Act was ill-prepared to
handle the new Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization regime. A cursory examination of the
Act reveals its inherent flaws immediately. There was no explanation or indication of any of the
restricted trade practices that are considered objectionable, including "Abuse of Dominance,"
"Cartels," "Collusion and Price Fixing," "Bid Rigging," and "Predatory Pricing." Although these
problems may be addressed generally under the heading of "restrictive practices," different opinions
arose because these offences and behaviours were not specified. This ultimately required the newer
legislation which would more equipped and will bring fresh perspective.
2) COMPETITION LAW
The basis of democracy and market competition is to ‘maximise public welfare.’ In United States of
America, competition law has been almost given the status of economic constitution.1 When India
had opened it’s economy to the world, it was basically giving away its power to ‘market forces’.
With the idea of ‘efficiency’ and maximisation of consumers welfare’2 as the centre point
competition law was enacted. The law targets those players which ‘conspire against the public’.3
The regulations of the Competition Act 2002, can be broadly divided into three categories:-
a) The Act prohibits horizontal and vertical anti-competitive agreements between enterprises.
b) It also prohibits the abuse of dominant position by any enterprise.
c) Further, the act also regulates ‘combinations’.4 By combination it means, the act also gives
thresholds in regard to, acquisition of an enterprise or merger by the enterprises and amalgamation of
enterprises.

1
B.S. Chauhan (no date) ‘INDIAN COMPETITION LAW: GLOBAL CONTEXT’, Journal of the Indian Law Institute,
54. doi:(July-September 2012), p316 (Accessed :- 03 January 2024).
2
id
3
Supra note 1 at p317
4
Supra note 1 at p318

2
The Competition Act has established a commission which is called ‘Competition Commission of
India.’ The said commission is the chief regulatory body who is mandated to eliminate practices
which has adverse effect on the market competition, it’s duty is to protect the interest of consumers,
ensure freedom of trade. Section 32 of the act5 gives commission powers to inquire against foreign
companies whose act can affect the relevant market of India. The said section is a brainchild of the
US Courts, as per their judgment “any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its
allegiance, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within its borders.6”
In today’s world where ‘bigger is better’ is the mantra of the marketing capitals. It’s necessary to
protect consumer welfare and that’s the jurisprudence behind the competition law. A great example
for this is the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. In the said case the proposed merger
between these two civil aircraft companies were of 14 billion. The merger got a green light from U.S.
antitrust law, but failed to get so from European Commission, 7 reason behind anti-competitive effects
that this merger would lead. Later on though, after intense negotiation EU approved the merger.
Situation at that time was so intense that it almost lead to trade was between two countries.
Whenever there is merger between two giants’ questions about ‘abuse of dominance’ comes into
picture. Which is one of the primary concern in regard to new technology that is ‘Big Data.
3) UNDERSTANDING BIG DATA IN TODAY’S WORLD
Big Data is a buzz word that is considered the greatest peril of our time 8. However, it’s often hard to
understand the meaning of the term ‘Big Data’. There is no proper given definition for it. One can
refer to big data as “data that is so large, fast or intricate that is can’t be processed using out
traditional methods.9” To make it simpler, big data is the collection of data from both online and
offline mode, which is processed using personalised algorithms into information that shows us
people’s preference, trends and other factors or indicators which assists organisations and analysts
in achieving more better and informed decisions.10 This data is unstructured or semi-structured11,
which is been obtained from different sources.
This collected data has it’s own commercial value as a product.12 Specially, when we are talking
about online world, value of most of the services which are provided on the internet is no longer
priced oriented but data based,13 making it new-currency of the internet.14 In today’s digital world
companies which has large huge set of this data are getting more dominated in the marketplace. It
helps companies to understand the behaviour of the consumer and their preferences, which further
helps the organisation to understand their target audience and help’s in other actives like:- supply
chain, understanding

5
The Competition Act 2002, Section 32
6
Supra Note 1 at p319
7
Kathleen Luz, The Boeing-McDonnell Douglas Merger: Competition Law, Parochialism, and the Need for a Globalized
Antitrust System , in 32 George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 155 (1999). p 155
8
Devins, C. et al. (no date) ‘THE LAW AND BIG DATA ’, (cornell.edu) [Preprint]. p358
9
Javeed, A. (no date) ‘Big Data and Emerging Competition Concerns’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint].
doi:10.2139/ssrn.3884350. p934
10
id
11
Kubina, M., Varmus, M. and Kubinova, I. (no date) ‘Use of big data for competitive advantage of company’, Procedia
Economics and Finance 26 ( 2015 ) 561 – 565 [Preprint], p564
12
T P, P. ‘BIG DATA ANALYTICS: A CAUSE OF CONCERN FOR COMPETITION?’, NLIU LAW REVIEW, VOL
IX(I), p69
13
T, Jaswin Ratnasekar, Understanding the Implications of Competition Law in the Era of Big Data (August 27, 2022).
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4212185 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4212185p15
14
id
3
competition in market, decision-making, improves business intelligence, saves cost etc. There is no
doubt that it is the ‘game changer’ for any market place.
As per McKinsey Global Institute, big data creates value in five ways:
1) It creates transparency by being more widely available.
2) It enables companies to set up experiments.
3) It helps in creating detailed segmentation of customers
4) Analysis of big data can also support human decision making.
5) Big Data enables new business models, products and services; or can help in improving the
existing business models, products or services15.
However, features of the said data is not limited to this five points. One should understand this, that
the said data is a personal data of a consumer, thus, it is not finite it always keeps increasing; could
be easily copied and shared.16 Online services like social media platform (Facebook, Twitter) or
google which is been considered free consumes huge set of data from the users. Thus, it won’t be
wrong to say that a user pays for these free services by providing their data.17
In today’s economy, companies with huge chunk of data climbs the ladder more rapidly and
dominates the position,18 Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple are examples of it.
Problem arises when the said data is not equally disturbed among the other players in the market.
Companies tries to restrict competitor’s from accessing the said data through exclusive agreement or
by using anti-competitive strategies, which in turn affects the quality of the competitors. 19 When it is
one single company that drives the market, it also takes away ‘right to choose’ from the consumer
because of lack of alternate platform. When market leaders acquires their potential competitors, not
only innovation is removed from the market but also higher concentration of market power in a
single firm.20
As per Indian Competition Act, there is no definition of dominance nor it is prohibited by the act.
However, the law prohibits the ‘abuse of dominance.’ Dominance of enterprise is to act
independently of any competitive forces in a relevant market, abuse of it consists behaving unfairly
or discriminatorily.21
4) BIG DATA VIS-À-VIS COMPEITION LAW
As in 2019, India has been ranked as second largest online market, China being the first. With the
drive of ‘Digital India’, Indian E-commerce market has grown quite tremendously. 22 However, there
is a growing concern of abuse of conduct by tech giants. Dominance is not a issue as long as
consumer is not harmed, but when we are talking about digital world there are very companies that
we can name

15
Supra Note 11
16
‘TACKLING BIG TECH’S DATA ADVANTAGE: IS THE INDIAN REGULATORY FRAMEWORK GEARED UP?’
(no date) INDIAN COMPETITION LAW REVIEW , VI(II). p59
17
id
18
Supra Note 15 at p16
19
Id at p19
20
Singh, K. and Mishra , S. (2021) CCI’s Investigation into WhatsApp Service Policy Update: Mapping the Scope of
Regulation of Privacy Policy vis-à-vis Competition Act, 2002, Kluwer Competition Law Blog. Available at:
https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/author/singhkritika/ (Accessed: 02 January 2024).
21
Supra Note 4
22
Sinha, Urbi, The Big(Data) Problem with the Competition Act, 2002 (December 5, 2021). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3977913 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3977913 ,p5
4
for specific services, this is because they have first mover advantage, which means they have huge
quantity of data, hence eliminating risk of new-competitors.
The overlap between Big Data and Competition law has thrown a lime light on concerns of privacy
arising out of data-driven mergers.23
It’s ironic to see that in a country where data privacy was just a concern of scholars or researchers,
has know even became a concern of CCI. Although CCI had several opportunities to look into the
issue with big data, it has only recently acknowledged data as a new norm 24 and is being a challenge
to competition law bodies and sectoral regulations.25
Battle In India for Data Privacy
The Competition Commission of India on the date of 24 th March 2021, launched ‘investigation order’
against WhatsApp and Facebook, the said action was the result of WhatsApp’s notification to its
users,26 regarding the changes in its policy, which allows WhatsApp to share the user data to
Facebook, parent company of WhatsApp. Not to mention that the said policy was mandatory for
users to accept.27 This ‘take it or leave it’ behaviour of WhatsApp was considered as abuse of
dominance by CCI.28 The said policy was quite different from the previous policies of WhatsApp
where option was given to the users to choose whether they want to share their personal data of
WhatsApp with Facebook or not.
This is the first time where CCI had officially considered ‘privacy’ as an important parameter of
competition law. Normally, concerns like this are dealt under constitution law. As per CCI the said
policy is contravened to section 4 of the Competition Act 2022.
In its order, the commission stated that it is investigating the aforementioned policy update through
the glance of competition to determine whether there are any competition concerns that could lead to
a violation of Section 4 of the act.
As to the Indian Competition Act, a dominant company's actions in the market that are exclusive and
exploitative for its benefit are the only circumstances in which abuse of dominance can be
established. In order to demonstrate WhatsApp's dominance, section 4 of the Act CCI would need to
be analysed and examined. Commission noted in the Harshita Chawla case 29 that Facebook and
WhatsApp are group companies and that, despite the fact that they may each operate in different
relevant sectors, their relative strengths in those markets can be ascribed to one another's positioning.
In the relevant market defined by the Commission, WhatsApp Messenger is the most widely used
app for social messaging, followed by Facebook Messenger. Its relative strength is further
demonstrated by the fact that WhatsApp is far ahead of other messaging apps like Snapchat,
WeChat, and others. Furthermore, since Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp Messenger are
controlled by the same company, they don't appear to be limited by one another and instead
strengthen their group dynamic. Consequently, WhatsApp was determined to be dominating due to
its widespread use, popularity, and

23
Supra Note 20
24
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & C0, CCI Report on Market Study on the Telecom Sector in India,p2
25
Id at p1
26
Singh, A.P. and Kumar, H. (2021) Antitrust Regulators v. Big Tech: The Battle Reaches India, FACULTY OF LAW
BLOGS / UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD Main navigation. Available at: https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-
blog/blog/2021/07/antitrust-regulators-v-big-tech-battle-reaches-india (Accessed: 03 January 2024).
27
Supra Note 20

5
28
Supra Note 26
29
Harshita Chawla Vs. WhatsApp Inc. and others (2020).

6
distinctive features for both individual and group discussions. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to
look at the alleged abusive behaviour of them. In order to prove that WhatsApp's exploitative
practices constitute an abuse of dominance, the Commission must provide a rational and legally
sound link between consumer harm and privacy infractions, as per Section 4. Therefore, one of the
Commission's tasks will be to address the evasive topic of how WhatsApp's (the dominant entity in
this context) forced data sharing with its group firms can be deemed as consumer exploitative.
Establishing the same could be especially difficult because two businesses that belong to the same
group can share data among themselves in an ethical manner.
Data-sharing being an internal policy of the company, commission will need to prove specific
violations of any legal provision which does not exist in India. The second issue the commission
would have to address is whether the improper way in which the personal data being aggregated
amounts to abusive activity, or if the data aggregation itself constitutes abusive conduct. It must also
address the issue of whether these powerful corporations in the market have obtained the necessary
consent from customers to combine their data; if not, will data aggregation violate antitrust laws?
It must prove that there is dominant undertaking by the WhatsApp which was aimed to deprive data
to rivals.30 However, if the facts are to be evaluated, the WhatsApp user was duly notified of the
modifications to the current privacy policy in a comprehensive manner, with a warning that failure to
comply with the changes will result in account deactivation. The entire procedure used here is
compliant with the principles of the Competition Law, as service users are offered the option to agree
or disagree with the adjustments. Therefore, it basically indicates consumer agreement if any of the
customers are accepting the changes to the privacy policy. Therefore, there is no evidence of
coercion that would imply that the privacy policy changes are in fact exclusive.
The order given by CCI was challenged by WhatsApp and Facebook before the Delhi High Court,
with their primary contention that it lacks CCI lacks the jurisdiction to take suo motu cognizance
when the same issues are already pending in the courts.31 The Delhi High Court noted that although it
would have been prudent for the CCI to wait for the resolution of the aforementioned petitions, doing
so would not have rendered the investigation order moot in and of itself because there is no
unbreakable rule that the CCI's jurisdiction would be superseded by the pending litigation in other
forums. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge's verdict has been challenged, and the Division Bench
is currently considering it. The decision made here could have a significant impact on India's data
privacy and competition laws.
Not unexpectedly, WhatsApp's new privacy policy has prompted antitrust regulators to launch
investigations into the company, not just by the CCI. Comparable inquiries have been opened by
competition authorities in Turkey and Argentina against Facebook and WhatsApp over their revised
terms of service and privacy policies. Infact, WhatsApp has been penalised USD 3.6 million by
Italian Competition and Markets Authority for similar situation.32 That is forcing them to share their
personal data with Facebook.
Facebook has a history of facing antitrust scrutiny.33 .Five antitrust bills were submitted by a
bipartisan group of US House of Representatives lawmakers on June 11, 2021, with the goal of
limiting the competitive strength of the internet giants, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The
bills centre on
30
Supra Note 27
31
Supra Note 28
32
Id

7
33
Id

8
the capacity to bring in new business and provide their own services preferential treatment. If these
legislations are approved, the tech companies may be forced to restructure their operations. These
proposals have been introduced against the backdrop of a sixteen-month inquiry into the
aforementioned firms by the US House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust,
Commercial, and Administrative Law. Additionally, Facebook was recently sued by the US Federal
Trade Commission for unlawfully retaining its monopoly and for purchasing Instagram and
WhatsApp, two competitor social media programs, without authorization. Similarly, the Trade
Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for its role in the Cambridge Analytica incident. Additionally,
Facebook was fined $6.5 million by the Canadian Competition Bureau for violating its own privacy
guarantees by disclosing user personal information to outside developers.
On June 4, 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority in the UK and the European Commission
opened formal antitrust investigations into Facebook in Europe to determine if the corporation uses
data gathered from competing services to distort competition in the classified advertising sector. The
Federal Cartel Office, the German competition regulator, judged Facebook's conditions of use to be
unfair and in breach of German competition law in a landmark ruling against the social media giant
in January 2019. Additionally, it placed an embargo on the contested conditions, which among other
things permitted Facebook to share data with its subsidiaries, Instagram and WhatsApp, as well as
with apps developed by other parties. The Cartel Office said that Facebook's extensive acquisition of
user data without consent and the subsequent distribution of that data amongst its services amounted
to a misuse of authority. The German Federal Court of Justice further supported the Cartel Office's
order. However, the Cartel Office's appeal body, the Higher Regional Court of Duesseldorf, recently
halted the Cartel Office's proceedings and asked the European Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling. The European Court of Justice has been asked to clarify whether the Federal Cartel Office can
adjudicate the violation of data privacy under the General Data Protection Rules.34
Talking about India, apart from CCI, this updated terms and polices by WhatsApp has already been
challenged under non-competition parameters in Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. Even the
Indian government has taken a strong stance against WhatsApp, ordering the company to rescind its
most recent privacy policy in a warning notice. However, WhatsApp is unwilling to back down from
its update, insisting that it complies with Indian legislation. The result of these adjudications will
significantly affect competition and data privacy in today's digital environment, regardless of how
this turns out.
5) CAN ANTI-TRUST LAWS REGULATE PRIVACY?
The antitrust jurisprudence that preceded the current investigation demonstrates that Indian
competition authorities have held that the claims of data privacy violations and violations of data
protection laws are outside the scope of competition regulations.
Regarding other international jurisdictions, the European Commission (EC) and the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) have repeatedly declined to take up the matter of data collection and the resulting
privacy violations, claiming that it falls under the purview of data protection law.
Therefore, the question of whether competition regulators globally, and in particular those of
regimes without a data protection law, have the right to control things pertaining to data infractions
arises.

34 Supra Note
7
35 Supra Note
7
In order to define the domains of data privacy and anti-trust as well as the extent of the parallel
regulators in cases where privacy and anti-trust intersect, the European Union developed the GDPR
regulations in 2016. Additionally, if the recent EU judgments addressing data privacy issues are taken
into account, it may be observed that antitrust regulators have acknowledged that "privacy" is a
determining factor. Therefore, it is evident that a progressive stance has been taken in acknowledging
data privacy issues as anti-trust issues; yet, it is important to realize that they may become feasible
after the enactment of GDPR policies.35
Therefore, the question of whether competition regulators globally, and in particular those of regimes
without a data protection law, have the right to control things pertaining to data infractions arises. If
the Indian jurisdiction is taken into account, the situation is completely different. As far as the scope
of the jurisdiction CCI is concerned, the authors would at this point reiterate their earlier concerns
about whether the investigation into the alleged data policy changes of a group entity at a much later
stage (when the best time to address such a concern was the time of the merger of two companies)
would set a wrong precedent going forward. This is made more difficult by the absence of a
comparable authority and a distinct data protection policy.
6) AI AND BIG DATA : CHALLENGES FOR COMPETITION LAW
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, enhancing market accuracy and
mitigating risk factors, a development applauded by international communities and the World
Intellectual Property Organization. In the Indian context, the Competition Act of 2002, designed to
regulate market competition, articulates objectives such as eliminating detrimental practices,
fostering global competition, ensuring trade freedom and fair practices, and safeguarding consumer
interests. Notably, the Act lacks explicit provisions addressing AI, potentially causing delays in
handling AI- related cases. AI's ability to offer predetermined suggestions raises concerns about its
impact on market competition. To address the mobility of AI in Indian markets, the need for
dedicated statutes is emphasized. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Rajasthan Cylinders and
Containers Limited v. Union of India case underscores the Competition Commission of India's role
in ensuring healthy competition and protecting consumer interests until a regulatory framework for
AI is established. Recognizing the threats of market dominance by AI and the broader impact of Big
Data, there's a call for regulatory measures to curb anti-competitive conduct through AI
mechanization. The adaptive potential of AI in diverse Indian markets, driven by its ability to
process vast amounts of data, is highlighted. However, the legal challenge arises from the 2002
Competition Law's inadequacy in encompassing AI, necessitating a comprehensive regulatory
update. As global markets evolve, the imperative for revised regulations becomes evident to address
AI-related challenges in Indian markets, shifting from resolving issues through reasonability to a
more anticipatory and robust legal provision.
The Competition Commission of India recently penalized Google for alleged abuse of dominance in
the Indian search engine market, highlighting concerns over preferential treatment of its own website
and access to extensive personalized data. This regulatory scrutiny extends to other tech giants like
Amazon and Flipkart, where data access has raised questions about potential market dominance and
violations of competition laws. The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on markets is categorized by
threats such as market foreclosure, new collusion patterns, and strategies for price discrimination.
The existing competition law regime grapples with challenges posed by AI algorithms and data
protection infringements, emphasizing the need for a flexible regulatory framework to address
evolving AI dynamics. Proposed solutions include increased transparency, cooperation for public
35
Supra Note

8
data disclosure,

35
Supra Note

8
and programming computers to disregard sensitive information to maintain fair market practices.
Establishing a flexible statute is crucial to effectively regulate AI and tackle unique challenges arising
in the rapidly evolving technological landscape.36
7) WAY FORWARD IN THE FUTURE
In contrast to competition law, which aims to preserve and foster competition rather than protecting
individual market players (i.e., competitors or consumers), the CCI Telecom Report recognizes data
as a metric for non-price competition37 and acknowledges that privacy could, fundamentally, be a
consumer protection issue.
The CCI ought to collaborate with other organizations (the proposed DPA in this instance) that have
been given the express authority to establish data protection guidelines. Although the CCI may be
able to identify a deviation from these norms that is anti-competitive, its attempt to determine what is
considered a "excessive amount of data" may put it at odds with other authorities who may be in a
better position to make such determinations in the first place. Furthermore, it is evident that the CCI
is still refining its stance on data usage. Correctly closing cases that were founded on "bald
assertions" and "assertions which are neither corroborated nor otherwise substantiated in any
manner," the CCI has done in the past furthermore declined to accept "potential future exclusion" as
a damage hypothesis. However, it seems that the CCI's inquiries into the MMT Interim Order and the
WhatsApp Suo Moto Order are predicated on unverified claims.
The CCI's examination into these matters may be premature given that the necessary parameters or
standards for data protection and usage have not yet been determined and are under appeal before
higher courts. Being more lenient with preliminary hearings is one strategy that could be useful; this
would let the CCI better understand the underlying business strategies and technology while also
making the most use of its investigation resources. It is nevertheless imperative that robust and
transparent data protection laws be put into place as soon as possible. In the event that such
legislation establishes a threshold for data gathering, the CCI may subsequently adjust its assessment
of market in the digital world.

36
Verma, A. (2020) Big Data and ai : Challenges for competition law, iPleaders. Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/big-data-ai-challenges-competition-law/ (Accessed: 07 January 2024).
37
Supra Note 24

9
CONCLUSION
It is evident that the intersection of big data and competition law presents complex and significant
challenges for regulatory authorities. The emergence of big data as a critical asset in the digital
economy has raised concerns about market dominance, abuse of power, and protection of consumer
welfare. Entities with substantial access to big data have the potential to stifle competition, limit
consumer choice, and undermine privacy.The Indian Competition Act, while addressing issues of
abuse of dominance, does not explicitly define or prohibit dominance. However, it prohibits the
abuse of dominance, which can manifest in behaviours that are unfair or discriminatory. The
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been actively investigating cases that involve the
potential abuse of big data, particularly in relation to mergers, data privacy concerns, and the impact
on market competition.The global landscape showcases similar challenges, with regulatory
authorities in various jurisdictions grappling with the complexities of regulating big data and its
intersection with competition law. Privacy concerns arising from data collection and use have been
recognized as crucial factors in antitrust investigations, especially in regions with established data
protection regulations such as the European Union.As a way forward, it is essential for regulatory
bodies, including the CCI, to collaborate with specialized organizations tasked with establishing and
enforcing data protection guidelines. Developing a clear and comprehensive framework for data
protection and usage will enable regulatory authorities to effectively address the anti-competitive
implications of big data while safeguarding consumer privacy and promoting fair market
competition.Furthermore, the need for robust and transparent data protection laws cannot be
overstated. Establishing clear thresholds for data gathering and usage within the digital market will
allow the CCI and similar entities to adapt their assessments and regulatory actions.