Latest news with #VikrantSingh
Mint
4 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Google and Meta antitrust cases show why we need a policy pincer to foster competition in digital markets
Next Story Business News/ Opinion / Views/ Google and Meta antitrust cases show why we need a policy pincer to foster competition in digital markets Sumit Jain , Vikrant Singh The dominance of Big Tech is the context for India's digital competition law on its way. We should combine prohibitions on anticompetitive practices with positive obligations on digital players to strengthen rivalry in favour of end users. The District Court of Columbia held that Google is monopolizing the general search and general search text advertisement market. Gift this article The US Department of Justice recently filed a petition in the Google Search case suggesting remedial action to promote competition in digital markets. Key steps include opening up the search ecosystem by prohibiting Google from offering any monetary incentives for the distribution of its search services, combining its search with other products and signing exclusive agreements with content publishers. It also suggests that Google be asked to offload its web browser Google Chrome, through which about 30% of the total search queries are obtained. The US Department of Justice recently filed a petition in the Google Search case suggesting remedial action to promote competition in digital markets. Key steps include opening up the search ecosystem by prohibiting Google from offering any monetary incentives for the distribution of its search services, combining its search with other products and signing exclusive agreements with content publishers. It also suggests that Google be asked to offload its web browser Google Chrome, through which about 30% of the total search queries are obtained. The petition comes in the backdrop of multiple contravention orders by competition authorities globally. For instance, in this case, the District Court of Columbia held that Google is monopolizing the general search and general search text advertisement market. Verdicts in Europe have found digital companies such as Google, Amazon and Meta engaged in practices like exclusive deals, lock-in provisions and self preferencing that foreclose avenues of competition to the incumbent. Also Read: Google Search: Its evolution is being led by GenAI and Gen Z Negative obligations: The digital industry is characterized by network effects and economies of scale. These sometimes also exhibit the first-mover advantage and winner-takes-all effect. The concentrated nature of platform markets has been such that governments globally have taken steps to inhibit the tipping effect. For instance, Europe has enacted the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which bans bundling and tying, self-preferencing and cross-utilization of data. Digital gatekeepers have a positive obligation to ensure the interoperability of their technologies. Bundling and tying: There are many adjacent services in digital markets and a core issue with the business model of digital companies has been the group-level tying and bundling of services in ways that can result in power concentration. Big Tech entities ensure that the behavioural bias of users is fully exploited so that dominance in one relevant market stream could be exploited to foreclose competition in a second market. For instance, while using Gmail along with its search engine may appear 'optional,' the size and placement of its pop-up on the search engine screen would suggest otherwise. Self-preferencing: This is another ubiquitous practice found to be anti-competitive. The strategy remains the same: i.e., to exploit a behavioural bias so that the user doesn't exit the ecosystem. For instance, an Android phone comes with Google Chrome as its default web browser. While users can install competing browsers, user inertia would support the status quo, which cements the position of the incumbent. Cross-utilization of data: Tech firms have been consolidating their dominant position through unauthorized access to personal data. For instance, in the Facebook data sharing case, Germany's federal cartel office found the company to be profiling users for advertisements without consent. The European Commission has held Meta in violation of the DMA, stating that its pay-or-consent model didn't give users any realistic choice to sign up for a less intrusive data sharing model. Positive obligations: It is important to give obligations such as interoperability and data portability their due focus, given concerns of whether negative obligations will actually help promote competition in digital markets. The European Commission recently developed guidelines to ensure the interoperability of Apple devices . Even the Court of Justice for the EU recently held that there is a positive obligation on a dominant company to keep its technology interoperable. India's startup ecosystem may benefit from expanded space for competition in various fields, be it app stores, web browsers or cloud computing platforms. India's draft digital competition law provides for data portability, indicating a change in direction. Conclusion: Digital markets have posed unique challenges for competition law enforcement. The Google case has highlighted the detrimental effect on competition of practices such as bundling, tying, self-preferencing and cross-utilization of data. So, positive obligations such as interoperability and data portability must be accorded high priority. A combination of negative and positive obligations is more likely to work as a deterrent to anti-competitive activity and ensure that digital markets become duly competitive. Such a framework would guard against abuses of digital market dominance and ensure that both our short-term and long-term goals of consumer welfare are served. The authors are directors, Centre for Competition Law and Economics. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
News18
29-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
Experts discuss terrorism, national security at event in Jaipur
Agency: PTI Last Updated: Jaipur, May 29 (PTI) Defence veterans, diplomats, and academicians came together for a dialogue on terrorism, national security, and civic responsibility at an event organised in Rajasthan's Jaipur on Thursday. The 'Dialogue of Defence Experts in the Context of Operation Sindoor' was hosted by Vishwam, a geopolitical and diplomatic forum, to discuss India's evolving security challenges. Vishwam founder Vikrant Singh emphasised the need to instill patriotism and national awareness among the youth. 'It is essential to provide a deeper understanding of threats to the nation and the role of citizens in preserving democratic and sovereign values," Singh said. Former Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer Gauri Shankar Gupta highlighted the role of Pakistan-backed terrorism and its international network. 'India will now treat any terrorist attack as an act of war and will respond with decisive force," he said. Retired Colonel Rajesh outlined a long-term security strategy, advocating for the global isolation of Pakistan. An Indian Air Force veteran stressed the importance of constructive youth engagement and renewed focus on nationalist education in India. PTI SDA OZ OZ (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) First Published:
The Hindu
02-05-2025
- The Hindu
Vikrant Singh reinstated at IIT Guwahati after court fnds termination unfair and arbitrary
Vikrant Singh, a Ph.D. student who had received a termination letter from IIT Guwahati, was reinstated in the institute after the Gauhati High Court stated that the institute had unjustly handled Mr. Singh's case. Justice Michael Zothankhuma said that Mr. Singh was not given a proper hearing, and the institute didn't share with him the documents of allegations against him; hence, principles of natural justice were ignored. Through a letter issued in June 2021, Vikrant Singh was terminated from the studentship of IIT Guwahati, with immediate effect. This was after the Students' Disciplinary Committee alleged that Mr. Singh had been defaming the institute. While Mr. Singh was called for a disciplinary meeting, he was not made aware of the specific allegation for the proposed hearing or what was to be defended. Mr. Singh wrote a letter, asking for the details and evidence, but instead of a reply, he received his termination letter. Mr. Singh's lawyer argued that he was not given a proper opportunity to hear or defend himself before the termination of his studentship from the IIT, Guwahati. The institute alleged that Mr. Singh had been stirring up controversies and trouble in the IIT, Guwahati, since the time he joined. It said that his actions were highly disruptive to the academic environment, and Mr. Singh has not made any attempt to comply with the Rules and Regulations of the IIT, Guwahati. Justice Michael Zothankhuma asked how someone could defend themselves without knowing the charges? The judge pointed out that the rules of fairness and natural justice were ignored. No proper hearing was given, and no documents were shared. The court set aside the termination. Vikrant would be allowed to complete his Ph.D. He was, however, told to follow the rules, avoid disrupting the academic environment, and submit an undertaking promising he would do so.
