Part I of this two-part series examines India’s refusal to recognise collective dominance under competition law. It traces the doctrine’s origins in EU jurisprudence, surveys its international reception, and analyses India’s statutory position, revealing the enforcement gaps that arise in oligopolistic markets driven by parallel but independent conduct.

This post explains why classic competition tools struggle with digital platforms and shows how data advantages, defaults and network effects shape market power. It reviews key CCI cases, compares global models, and sets out a balanced framework for India that mixes targeted ex-ante duties with strong ex-post enforcement and practical tools for smaller market actors.

This post explores the jurisdictional gap in how India handles misleading advertisements. It looks at why the CCI limits its role to cases involving dominance, how decisions in Woodman Electronics, Moses Pinto, and Winzo Games reveal inconsistencies, and why digital platforms complicate the line between consumer protection and competition law.