India’s competition watchdog, CCI, has officially entered the AI debate with its Market Study on Artificial Intelligence and Competition (2025). As reported by Medianama, this study provides a “detailed assessment of how AI may reshape competition in India’s digital markets”. The study situates India’s response within a global landscape where jurisdictions are diverging sharply in how they regulate AI’s impact on competition. Some countries deal with the harm after it has occurred (ex-post), some take a more proactive approach (ex-ante), and others adopt a mix of the two (hybrid). An analysis of these different enforcement approaches reflects a trade-off between fostering innovation and preventing concentrated power.
The Ex-Post Enforcement Approach
This approach uses existing competition and antitrust statutes to address anti-competitive harms after they occur. It stems from a common law tradition that prioritises market-led innovation and intervenes only after a clear violation.
The United States exemplifies this approach by relying on antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. The Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission initiated investigations and litigation only in response to allegations of harm to competition or consumers.
The landmark case against Meta (formerly Facebook) regarding its housing ad delivery system reveals how this approach works. Following investigations first reported by ProPublica as early as 2016, the U.S. DoJ filed a lawsuit in 2019 alleging that Meta violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968 with its use of the “Special Ad Audience” tool. Years after journalists exposed bias in ad delivery, regulators used old statutes like the Fair Housing Act to secure compliance and penalties. It worked, but only after systemic discrimination had already distorted the market.
The Ex-Ante Enforcement Approach of Regulating Competition
This approach uses legislation designed specifically to address AI-related challenges. This legislation not only outlines how to deal with harm but also proactively sets rules for tech companies to follow. Given the speed and scale of AI adoption, this ex-ante approach details the ‘rules of the game’ in advance.
The European Union best exemplifies this approach with its EU AI Act that establishes a risk-based hierarchy for AI systems. Companies must meet compliance and transparency obligations for high-risk applications before deploying them. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) complements this by designating certain tech firms as “gatekeepers”. These are firms that then face stricter prohibitions and obligations. This is evident in the case of DMA’s prohibition on self-preferencing which in turn regulates Google’s search ranking AI.
Similarly, several other major economies are adopting proactive, ex-ante strategies to govern AI and digital competition. China…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
