ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION BY THE E-COMMERCE

RETAILERS.
ABSTRACT
The Indian Industry Department, some time back, so as to streamline the consistently
developing field of online business, was wanting to characterize the term 'commercial centre'
and furthermore detailed with respect to what establishes retail and discount exchanging on
such stages. Alongside web based business and prominent new businesses, this move of the
Government is probably going to choose the course of conventional physical retailers who have
since a long time ago whined that these internet business commercial canters have made
advances into retail too and, accordingly, the matter of customary retailers is being influenced.
What's more, the e-commercial canters additionally get the help from billions of dollars which
have discovered their way into the equivalent as investment. This move of the Government has
put this outside subsidizing likewise in question. The theme titled as "An investigation of the
maltreatment of predominant situation by the web based business retailers in India" tries to
examine the interface between rivalry law and the web based business segment keeping in see
the web based business retail showcase which has been moved by the rising infiltration of cell
phones, workstations, the dispatch of 4G organizes and expanding buyer's riches trailed by an
expanding acknowledgment of the possibility of virtual shopping coupled by expanding
support of different undertakings in the electronic part. In any case, it is clear that internet
business has been impelling different arrangement of hostile to focused issues which might be
monetary or something else, therefore requiring the watchfulness of the Competition
Commission of India. Therefore, a need emerges to investigate the web based business division
in the light of the arrangements of the Competition Act, 2002. In such manner the exploration
paper tries to characterize the internet business industry, clarifies the idea of strength and
maltreatment of predominant position while at the same time expounding upon the different
works on adding up to maltreatment in the online business division. The exploration paper has
additionally taken consideration in examining the job of the Competition Commission in
managing the online business segment in India by alluding to different case laws.
Watchwords: - E-business; Competition Act, 2002, Competition Commission of India,
Dominance,

1|Page
INTRODUCTION

In a few years there has been a growth in the electronic commerce industry on a global scale
and may countries have witnessed it. Eventually India also. This unprecedented growth is on
account of mushrooming of internet, growth of start-ups and changing customer behaviour.
The market and distribution system has tremendously changed owing to the advent of the e-
commerce retail market, as it brings along a vast number of buyers and sellers through the
medium of World Wide Web. Many apps and websites such as Ola, Flipkart, Amazon etc are
based on the concept of internet marketing and provide goods at a very low rates as compared
to the traditional cement and brick stores. Predicting the reasons for such low rates is not tough,
there is a twofold reason for doing it- 1] This system is in a nascent stage and to survive in such
a competitive market they will do whatever it takes for them to capture the market share. Hence,
clearly the whole strategy depends upon the tool-price. Secondly the Indian e commerce has
excessive funds where they can afford giving discounts on a higher range and eventually this
leads them to great profits and no loss. Traditional stores are also trying on the same frontier,
and customers do come to the stores but just to check the product physically before purchasing
any product online. This factor shows that the balance is tilting towards the e-commerce sector
which naturally is a source of tension between the two competing networks, leading to legal
complexities which are to be addressed through the antitrust regimes. The main function of the
antitrust law is to promote a healthy competition and to act as a safeguard in case the economic
power for the welfare of the customers is being misused. So in this way every country has their
own safeguard for eg India has also got the one which is known as The Competition Act 2002,
in Europe its European Competition Law etc. However, with the growth of the e-commerce
sector the role of the Commission as a regulator represents a new paradigm.

CONCEPT OF E COMMERCE

The most basic question is who owns the internet? the most transparent answer that we all have
is no one. It simply exists and that’s all. There are different bodies who manage the data
connection. ‘At the service level’ it has hardware and software tools which provide an interface
with the various network options and to the customer premises equipment [CPE] or to the
terminal equipment. At this level as far as the user is concerned the managing source is ISP.
Basically this ISP owns the majority of the servers on which the information is being hosted
and are also responsible for ensuring that individuals and companies have access to the internet.

2|Page
The jurisdiction lies where they are based. It is the ISP which represents the public face of the
internet for the most users. So it is the third level which raises most legal complexities. So three
separate trends came forward to contribute to infrastructure and the technology for the
ecommerce.1 Electronic commerce, commonly known as e-commerce, consists of the buying
and selling of products or services over electronic systems such as the Internet and other
computer networks. The World Trade Organization defines e-commerce as, "e-commerce is
the production, distribution, marketing, sales or delivery of goods and services by electronic
means." The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines e-
commerce as commercial transactions, involving both organizations and individuals, that are
based upon the processing and transmission of digitized data, including text, sound and visuals
images and that are carried out over open networks (like, the internet) or closed networks (like,
AOL or Mintel) that have gateway onto an open network.2

KINDS OF E-COMMERCE

E-commerce is basically of two kinds: • Indirect e-commerce (electronic ordering of goods

both intangible and tangible); and • Direct e-commerce (exchange of goods online or using
electronic means) Indirect e-commerce involves ordering of goods. Delivery of such goods
cannot be done online. Thus, only soliciting the customers and orders through electronic
mediums does not mean doing business within a country and there should not be any question
of profit arising in that country in such a case.

EFFECTS OF E-COMMERCE ON BUSINESS

Electronic commerce is progressively and irreversibly changing the face of many businesses
because of three dominant phenomena: (1) Disintermediation, whereby intermediaries in the
transaction are eliminated (e.g., on-line trading); (2) Re-intermediation, whereby a new
electronic intermediary comes between the seller and the buyer (e.g., electronic booksellers
that take orders and farm them out to providers that have the book in stock); and (3)
Cannibalization, whereby businesses progressively give up their traditional ventures system

for the superior electronic model (e.g., traditional pharmacies opening on-line drug stores).

1
Global Perspectives on E-Commerce Taxation Law.
2
S.R.DINODIA&CO.

3|Page
CONCEPT OF ABUSE DOMINANCE.

Competition law and policy, around the globe, looks to be a way to accomplish the parts of the
bargains distribution of assets, specialized advancement, buyer welfare and guideline of
centralization of monetary power. A territory of worry for the greater part of the enactments in
regards to rivalry law in different nations is the maltreatment of predominant situation by
endeavours. A maltreatment of predominant situation in a market can be comprehended to
allude to circumstances where abused methods are utilized to hold or achieve a place of
monetary quality or market control or where such a position is abused. Such a circumstance
can be exorbitant to the general public.

Meaning of Dominant Position

“Overriding” or “influential” are the dictionary meanings to the term “Dominant.” Predatory
in this sense on the other hand means dominating exploitation for acquiring financial purpose
or gains. A undertaking holding a position which is “dominating” is only possible if it has the
ability to behave independently or separately without the fear of its competitors, customers,
suppliers and, the ultimate consumer. Market being held by such power of the dominating
undertaking gives it the control of manipulating the price as per its wishes or needs. This will
enable them to sell products or services of lower quality or lower cost of innovation below the
level in which it actually exists in a competitive market. Dominant position has two major
aspects: Firstly, dominant enterprise‟s position such as it enables it to operate independent of
competitive forces generated by its rivals. This is important because healthy competition
among competitors promotes productive and allocate efficiencies and optimizes consumer
surplus. So if an enterprise takes measures with intention to create entry barriers, drive out
existing rivals, control output or price, it causes concerns. Secondly, the aspect of dominance
given in explanation (a)(ii) to section 4 of the Act relates to the ability of an enterprise to affect
its competitors or consumers or the relevant market. In sense, this is higher degree of strength
where an enterprise may be freely able to adopt price or nonprime strategy to overcome
downward pressures on its profit from its competitor, or to capture or bind consumer or to
create a market environment that would deter newer completion, both in terms of competing
enterprises or rival products. Determination of dominant position depends upon two main
factors – market share and entry conditions. It is important to note that to achieve a dominant
position by legitimate means, such as through product innovation, superior production or
distribution techniques or through greater entrepreneurial efforts. The Competition

4|Page
Commission of India has recognized certain conditions while determining the agreements
dominant status as per section 19 of the Competition Act. The determination of the dominant
position though market share, sales figures and active stock. But in most cases the market
power is determined on the basis of the functional characteristics, of the products on the pattern
of consumer behaviour.

Position according to Indian law: The Indian position with respect to predominance is at present
represented by the Competition Act, 2002, which manage the issue in detail. In any case, before
going into that it will be advantageous to investigate the situation under the old law, which is
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969. The arrangements of this
Act were focused at "predominant endeavours" and thus firms were being hit simply because
of their size. The expression "prevailing endeavour" was characterized under Section 2(d)
“dominant undertaking” meansi an undertaking which by itself or along with inter-connected
undertaking produces, supplies, distributes or otherwise controls not less than one-fourth of the
total goods that are produced,supplied or distributed in India or any substantial part thereof; or

ii. an undertaking which provides or otherwise controls not less than one-fourth of any services
that are rendered in India or any other substantial part thereof.

The SVS Raghavan Committee set up by the Government set down in completely clear terms
that despite the fact that strength is a vital condition for building up infringement of
arrangement in regards to maltreatment of predominant position; it is in no way, shape or form
an adequate condition. Along these lines the board proposed that "strength" what's more,
"predominant endeavour" might be properly characterized in the challenge law as far as "the
position of solidarity appreciated by an endeavour which empowers it to work freely of focused
weight in the pertinent market and furthermore to considerably influence the important market,
contenders and shoppers by its activities".

In essence, Section 19 emphasizes the Competition Commission's duty to examine these

aspects while addressing the dominant position factors, so we can conclude that we can
consider these crucial steps while determining whether a company holds a dominant position
and abusses it

1. Defining the business in question.

2. Evaluation of competitive power to determine whether the enterprise holds the significant
power.

5|Page
3. Consider whether the conduct of the undertaking amounts to abuse.3

These are the few types of abuse of dominant position’ situation analyzed as under

1. Predatory Pricing- As per section 4(b) of the Act it explains it as the practice by which the
sale of goods or the provision of services, is at a rate of price which is lower the cost price with
the view to reduce the competition or eliminate the competitors.

2. Refusal to supply- This practice involves purposefully withholding the supply of the product
or service thus increasing the demand for the same and then forcing the customers to buy the
product or service at a higher price thus manipulating the needs of the customer. This act of
refusal has a major negative impact on the state of fair competition in the relevant market.

3. Limiting Supply- The practice of limited supply of products of luxurious and precious nature
thus having the advantage of raising the price because of its scarcity. The appropriate example
for this is the diamond market, though large quantities of them are in kept in storage, only a
small quantity is only polished and made available to the customers, thus resulting in its high
price.

4. Barriers to entry or denial of the market assess - Barriers to entry includes patent as well as
strategic first mover advantages.

5. A group of colluding multiple suppliers appreciably affecting the relevant market.4

Section 4 of the Indian Competition Act defines about the abuse of dominant position by an
enterprise or a group of enterprise. In India, the Competition Act of 2002 lays down the ground-
rules on what constitutes predatory pricing. ‘Predatory pricing’ figures in the section on abuse
of dominant position by a market player. It expressly forbids any enterprise or group from
‘abusing its dominant position’ in the market, either by imposing unfair conditions or an unfair
and discriminatory price — including predatory price — resulting in denial of market access.
PP is usually defined as the price which sells goods below the price of the cost of production.
Section 4 (1) of the Competition Act prohibits any enterprise or group from abusing its
dominant position.1 Such a provision of the act lays down two major requirements firstly, the
enterprise must enjoy a dominant position and secondly, the enterprise must abuse its dominant

3
9 Sneha Singh & Syed Ahmed, Abuse Of Dominant Position Academike (2015),
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/perfect-competition-and-abuse-of-dominant-position
4
Sneha Singh & Syed Ahmed, Abuse Of Dominant Position Academike (2015),
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/perfect-competition-and-abuse-of-dominant-position/ (last visited Feb
15, 2015)

6|Page
position. As per Section 2 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Competition Act abuse of dominant position
takes place when the enterprise or the group directly, or indirectly, impose unfair and
discriminatory conditions in purchase or sale of goods or service; or B). price in purchase or
sale including predatory price of goods or service. Hence determination of the abuse of
dominant position depends on main two factors- market share and entry conditions. The CCI
has also identified some conditions ion relevance to this as per section 19 of Competition Act.
19. Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise.—

(1) The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in
sub-section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on—

(a) receipt of a complaint, accompanied by such fee as may be determined by regulations, from
any person, consumer or their association or trade association; or

(b) a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory

authority.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the powers and functions
of the Commission shall include the powers and functions specified in sub-sections (3) to (7).

(3) The Commission shall, while determining whether an agreement has an appreciable adverse
effect on competition under section 3, have due regard to all or any of the following factors,
namely:—

(a) creation of barriers to new entrants in the market;

(b) driving existing competitors out of the market;

(c) foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market;

(d) accrual of benefits to consumers;

(e) improvements in production or distribution of goods or provision of services;

(f) promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or

distribution of goods or provision of services.

(4) The Commission shall, while inquiring whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position
or not under section 4, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:—

(a) market share of the enterprise;

7|Page
(b) size and resources of the enterprise;

(c) size and importance of the competitors;

(d) economic power of the enterprise including commercial advantages over competitors;

(e) vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of such enterprises;

(f) dependence of consumers on the enterprise;

(g) monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue of
being a Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise;

(h) entry barriers including barriers such as regulatory barriers, financial risk, high capital cost
of entry, marketing entry barriers, technical entry barriers, economies of scale, high cost of
substitutable goods or service for consumers;

(i) countervailing buying power;

(j) market structure and size of market;

(k) social obligations and social costs;

(l) relative advantage, by way of the contribution to the economic development, by the
enterprise enjoying a dominant position having or likely to have appreciable adverse effect on
competition;

(m) any other factor which the Commission may consider relevant for the inquiry.

(5) For determining whether a market constitutes a “relevant market” for the purposes of this
Act, the Commission shall have due regard to the “relevant geographic market” and “relevant
product market”.

(6) The Commission shall, while determining the “relevant geographic market”, have due
regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:—

(a) regulatory trade barriers;

(b) local specification requirements;

(c) national procurement policies;

(d) adequate distribution facilities;

(e) transport costs;

8|Page
(f) language;

(g) consumer preferences;

(h) need for secure or regular supplies or rapid after-sales services.

(7) The Commission shall, while determining the “relevant product market”, have due regard
to all or any of the following factors, namely:—

(a) physical characteristics or end-use of goods;

(b) price of goods or service;

(c) consumer preferences;

(d) exclusion of in-house production;

(e) existence of specialised producers;

(f) classification of industrial products.

CONCEPT OF RELEVANT MARKET

According to the explanation (a) of section 4 of the Competition Act, dominant function must
be enjoyed via an business enterprise or a group of enterprise in the relevant market making it
imperative to define applicable market. Section 2(r) of the act defines relevant market as a
market which the Competition Commission of India may determine with reference to the
relevant product market or the applicable geographic market or with reference to both the
markets. In the context of e-commerce, there are two distinct markets-online markets and
offline markets where the on-line market by itself can be considered as a relevant market. In
this regard it is well worth bringing up the approach made through the CCI in the case of Mr.
Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Ltd. & Ors.6 where the question that whether the e-
portals market may be regarded as a unique pertinent item advertise or as a negligible sub-
fragment of the market for dissemination was left open. However, the position was clarified
with the aid of the CCI in the case of Mr. Asish Ahuja v. Snapdeal.com, 7 where the CCI
genuinely stated that both the markets are different in matter of cut price and purchase
experience. In such instances the shoppers seem to be for the alternatives handy in both the
markets and thereby, determine accordingly. In case if the price of the items in the on line
market has elevated significantly, then there is a possibility that the consumer will shift closer

9|Page
to the offline market and vice-versa. On the foundation of such reasoning the Commission is
of the opinion that the two markets-online and offline, are divergent channels of distribution of
the like product and not two one-of-a-kind relevant markets.

TREATMENT OF EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND MINIMUM

RESALE PRICE

Choosing unique dealers/distributors thereby refusing to deal with different players in the
market has remained a everyday struggle beneath competition laws. This difficulty is surfacing
in the context of e-commerce and manifesting itself in a number of ways. In present day, it is
most regularly viewed that quite a few products, e.g. particular brands of mobile phones are
solely accessible for purchase through retailers. While it might also be manufacturer‘s choice
to adopt such policies to reach to a wider target market in a price effective manner, the
anticompetitive results of such preparations and issues related to foreclosures of market for
other players proceed to prevail. This issue has reached the CCI in the context of the sale of
Chetan Bhagat‘s book, ―Half Girlfriend‖ which was solely handy on Flipkart‘s website.
Allegations had been raised that such preparations slowly smash players in the physical market
and tend to create product unique monopoly main to manipulation of price, manage of
production and supply, imposition of phrases and conditions unsafe to interests of shoppers
and distortion of fair competition in the marketplace. However, CCI did now not agree with
these allegations and opined that an specific arrangement between a manufacturer and an e-
portal would not create any entry barriers as most of the products as illustrated in the statistics
to be bought via unique e-partners (i.e. online platforms) face competitive constraints. In CCI‘s
views, mobile phones, tablets, books, camera etc., are neither alleged nor appear to be trodden
by monopoly or dominance. Furthermore, there was once no concrete proof that by means of
advantage of such exclusive agreements any of the current players in the retail market have
been getting adversely affected. CCI was of the opinion that in the new e-commerce era, with
the entry of new e-portals into the market, competition only looks to be growing, thereby
allaying anti-competitive concerns. Given that e-commerce is a new age industry, the series
and presentation of data regarding the have an impact on of e-commerce is in all likelihood to
take some time. However, as soon as such data becomes conveniently available, the market
based economic evidences may also play a imperative function in shifting CCI‘s attitude
towards these issues. Another related problem in e-commerce industry arises from the genuine

10 | P a g e
physical market and tend to create product particular monopoly main to manipulation of price,
control of manufacturing and supply, imposition of phrases and conditions damaging to
interests of shoppers and distortion of honest competition in the marketplace.

Online Sales and Discounts

Online shopping portals offer a large number of discounts such as Black Friday deals in the
US, Big billion day and Diwali offer in India to lure consumers and expand their consumer
base. Simultaneously such acts of the online players have also invited the fury of the traditional
offline sellers who are lamented by decreasing sales as the customers visit the market just to
have a physical look of the products reducing the shops to mere showrooms for customer
display and inquiry whereas, the actual purchase is usually made through online platforms since
they offer anti-competitive cheaper prices. Against such anti-competitive practices numerous
instances have been recorded before the CCI against several online players such as Flipkart,
Snapdeal, Amazon, Jabong and Myntra alleging predatory pricing. But in the Flipkart Case the
CCI at the prima facie level rejected the claim since none of the players enjoyed dominance in
the retail market and in order to prove predatory pricing it is fundamental to show that the
enterprise has a dominant position in the market. The determination of dominance is connected
to the refusal made by the CCI to designate e-market as a different space of goods/services. In
the case of M/s Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited v. ANI Technologies, it was alleged that
Ola was providing incentives, loyalties, rebates, predatory discounts. Here, the Commission
noted that the act of Ola of providing heavy discounts to its purchasers and bonus to its
employees at the cost of bearing loss seems to be a well devised plan of the enterprise
formulated to exclude other market players out of the relevant market. This case shows that
there has been a transit in the attitude of CCI with regards to the protection of the traditional
taxi service providers.

Advertisement Schemes in E-Commerce Space

E-commerce enterprises basically operate in online spheres, hence their visibility,

manufacturer identify and promoting is integral for their boom hence, the Competition law
provides the fundamental tool to showcase their visibility in the market place. In this context it
is noteworthy to country that several e-commerce corporations such as Microsoft, Yahoo,

11 | P a g e
Facebook, Yatra, Nokia’s Here Maps etc had been requested by the Director General (DG) to
furnish their comments with regards to the investigation of abuse of dominance towards
Google. Google being one of the most popular search engines has been alleged to abuse its
dominance by offering its personal maps, places, Google+ social network which was aiming
to compete with Facebook. The DG in this regard has laid down quite a number grounds on the
basis of which Google is said to abuse its dominance. These points are as follows:

1. The unfair imposition of prerequisites on the agents to whom Google is selling its services;

2. Reducing and confining technical and scientific development with regards to goods and
offerings to the prejudice of the consumers;

3. Constraining dominant companies from involving into practices leading in the denial of the
market get entry to in any manner;

4. Constraining a dominant corporation from utilising its position of dominance in one relevant
market with a view to enter into, or guard, different applicable markets.

CASES

In the case of Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd V Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. and
Others,the case was regarding the unauthorised selling of amway products by the ecommerce
website such as flipkart,amazon,etc. As Amway only authorised only dealers in the physical
market to sell its product to the consumers and use to sell its products on its online portal
www.amway.in. Amway use to sell its products by the direct selling guidelines issued by the
government of India.But the E-commerce websites started selling the products of amway
through its physical dealers without the knowledge and authorisation of Amway, Amway
branded products were being advertised, offered for sale and sold on the said platforms without
Amway's consent. This, according to Amway, was in violation of the Guidelines. Away got to
know that its products are being sold on the E-commerce websites on cheaper rates than the
market price which led to huge financial loss to the company as well as the direct sellers. The
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter, ‘FSSAI’), on 9th April, 2018, issued
a letter to all major e-commerce entities operating in India, namely Flipkart,Amazon,Snapdeal,
and Shopclues, asking them to stop sale of direct selling products, without consent of the Direct
Selling Entities and in contravention of the Guidelines.

12 | P a g e
Maintenance of minimum sale price is a point of contention in the e-commerce sector. It is only
in limited instances that the issue on ensuring parity between online and offline sellers, has
risen before the CCI yet it remains pivotal with regards to future analysis. In the case of ESYS
v. Intel Corporation & Ors.,Intel was alleged of dictating the retail price of its products, the
Commission held that a company can monitor its downstream market’s price and such an act
would not amount to be anti-competitive. The CCI in a case had clarified that offering of
distinctive discount to distinct consumers i.e., less discount to retail buyers and a greater
discount to bulk buyers are not to be construed as being violative of Section 3 (4) of the
Act.12.In the case of M/s Ex Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd v. M/s Hyundai Motor
India Limited, it was concluded by the CCI that confinements forced by Hyundai on the most
extreme reasonable rebate that might be given by a merchant to the end-client, combined with
the act of value observing by the Hyundai wherein the merchants were punished by virtue of
any deviation added up to a resale value support infringing upon Section 3.

In the case of Mr. Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Ltd. & Ors. the question arose
whether the e-portals market may be regarded as a different pertinent item advertise or as a
negligible sub-fragment of the market. The position of online market was clarified by the CCI
in the case of Mr. Asish Ahuja v. Snapdeal.com, where the CCI clearly stated that both the
markets online and offline are different in matter of discount and purchase experience. In such
cases the consumers look for the options available in both the online and offline markets and
thereby, decide accordingly. In case if the price of the goods in the online market has elevated
significantly, then there is a likelihood that the consumer will shift towards the offline market
and vice-versa. On the basis of such reasoning the Commission is of the opinion that the two
markets-online and offline, are divergent channels of distribution of the like product and not
two different relevant markets.

In the case of Mr.Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.& Ors before CCI the,
suit was regarding the sale of a book named “Half Girlfriend” by Chetan Bhagat was only
available on Flipkart for sale exclusively. flipkart. It was alleged that such arrangements were
destroying the existence of other sellers in the physical market. Such allegations were rejected
by CCI which opined that a selective plan between a producer and an online platform would
not make any entry obstructions since products sold via online portals face competitive
constraints. CCI opined that the new era of E-Commerce business goes with the passage of

13 | P a g e
new e-entries of sellers into the market, rivalry just gives off an impression of being developing
and lessening against aggressive concerns.

14 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

Competition law intervention in e-commerce sphere serves various purposes. It facilitates the
e-commerce companies to operate in an equal plane with traditional bricks and mortar
companies and their dealers. Competition law provides enough room that novel and innovative
companies are able to penetrate into the market and offer more choices to consumers and
companies. At the same time, competition law provides enough safeguards for traditional
dealers and companies intending to protect the interest of the traditional dealers against the
eroding effects caused by e-commerce companies. Similarly, competition law provides checks
and balance upon e-commerce companies preventing them to price unfairly, i.e. offer deep
discounts which in turn are predatory. Besides, e-commerce also provides a strategic value to
e-commerce companies who may proceed against unfairness in the online space perpetuated
by giants such as Google. therefore, the interface between e commerce and competition law
has emerged as one of the seminal issues and in days to come, would crucially shape the
jurisprudence both of competition law and e-commerce regulation.

15 | P a g e