US Tech Giants Say Indian Panel's Recommended Competition Act 'Absolutist and Regressive' (techcrunch.com) 26
An influential industry group that represents Google, Meta and Amazon among other tech firms has expressed concerns about the digital competition law recommended by an Indian parliamentary panel that seeks to regulate their alleged anticompetitive practices, calling the proposal "absolutist and regressive" in nature in the latest escalation of tension between U.S. tech giants and New Delhi. From a report: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance recommended last month that the government enact a digital competition act to regulate anticompetitive business practices by Big Tech companies on its platforms, prohibiting them from preferentially promoting their in-house brands or not supporting third-party systems. The competition act, the panel said, "will be a boon not only for our country and its nascent startup economy but also for the entire world."
Industry group Asia Internet Coalition said in a statement that the proposed digital competition law may hurt digital innovation in India and could impact the investments by businesses in India and have "disproportionate costs" to consumers in the South Asian market. "The report put forward by the committee is prescriptive, absolutist and regressive in nature," it added.
Industry group Asia Internet Coalition said in a statement that the proposed digital competition law may hurt digital innovation in India and could impact the investments by businesses in India and have "disproportionate costs" to consumers in the South Asian market. "The report put forward by the committee is prescriptive, absolutist and regressive in nature," it added.
Not suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Or those govt leaders are pocketing some money.
From whom? Who is handing out money to corrupt government officials here? I feel like you are just throwing out words without thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From whom? Who is handing out money to corrupt government officials here?
The businesses who benefit from the legislation. When one set of companies is hurt by legislation, it doesn't mean consumers benefit. It often just means other businesses benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill is targeting platforms. It effects a lot of companies, but the only ones who suffer from it are the platform owners. That's a pretty limited group.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones who benefit? You mean: all other businesses? They sent around a collection plate or something?
The bill is targeting platforms. It effects a lot of companies, but the only ones who suffer from it are the platform owners. That's a pretty limited group.
I think we are saying the same thing. The AC insinuated there wasn't anyone benefiting enough to be worth bribing officials. Both of us appear to be saying there are plenty of companies benefiting enough to line the pockets of the politicians enacting this legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or those govt leaders are pocketing some money.
If they're pocketing some money in favour of fair competition isn't that still good for consumers?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the competition is no longer fair. Those with the deepest pockets will win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, sounds like it should be the template for new laws everywhere.
US Tech Giants Say (Score:3)
Oligopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
The Oligopoly wishes to preserve its oligopoly. News at 11.
Need details (Score:5, Insightful)
We won't really be able to judge things like this without seeing specifically what the bills do. It might be decent legislation. It might be well-intentioned but useless. It might be a means to promote hindutva nonsense. It might be a way for huge companies in India to get a handout with little customer benefit. Or it might be any number of other things.
Re: (Score:1)
India says ... (Score:2)
a boon not only for our country
Who says that the competition that this act will promote will benefit companies in India? They had better be prepared to welcome their new Chinese overlords.
And then beg for Google to come back.
Translation from corporate-fud to people-speak (Score:2)
calling the proposal "absolutist and regressive" in nature
"prescriptive" - of course it's prescriptive, it's what all laws are - they PRESCRIBE things, like behaviour. So word salad.
"absolutist" means NOTHING in this context. It's just word salad.
Industry group Asia Internet Coalition said in a statement that the proposed digital competition law may hurt digital innovation in India and could impact the investments by businesses in India and have "disproportionate costs" to consumers in the South Asian market
translation: We're an industry group and we don't want competition or regulation, so we're saying it "may hurt digital innovation" while not saying HOW competition can possibly harm innovation - in other words, an outright lie. Competition creates innovation.
translation: "impact investments in India" - of course it
Re: Translation from corporate-fud to people-speak (Score:1)
Yes to all of this.
"Regressive"?? My thoughts instantly went to Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
India's digital competition act and CCI (Score:5, Informative)
I get that it may feel a uniquely "American" thing that Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play is something we're trying to break up, but believe it or not, the entire planet Earth is fucking over this duopoly. The CCI (Competition Commission of India) is recommending an act to be passed into law, basically indicating that the App Store and Google Play are monopolies. Now what can be done about it legally, that's up for Bhratya Sansad (Parliament of India) to figure out.
Now I just mention the Apple App Store and Google Play as examples that were brought up, but things like Facebook, Amazon, YouTube, etc were also brought up and the key thing that's being considered here can be **VERY ROUGHLY** summarized as: "Are you a tech company offering a service with multiple partners that contribute to you? Are you suggesting your own home brew version of something over partners who are contributing to you? If you answer "Yes" to both, we're looking to regulate you in some fashion."
Now how/what regulation would be put in place is "unknown" at this time as CCI didn't really expound upon that. Also point is this specifically targets ONLINE ONLY and ONLY COMPANIES THAT SELL THE GOODS OR SERVICES OF OTHER COMPANIES ONLINE. So it would be one thing if say Tata was just selling their Nano car on their website. Would be falling under this recent CCI recommendation if Tata was also selling the Maruti Suzuki Dzire on their website, but putting the fact that you could buy one in like 7pt font. Also, Tata could be selling the Dzire at their store but the display for it was in a cellar, required a flashlight, had no stairs to get down to cellar, the display was locked in a disused lavatory in the aforementioned cellar, and was behind a sign indicating "beware of the leopard". The fact that none of this was being done online would be outside of this recommendation by the CCI and would in theory be legal for any Tata dealership owned by the family of Douglas Adams.
Joking aside, the entire point here is this is India's push on tech giant platforms that have largely gone unregulated and the world over is getting mostly tired of their shit. These companies are going to bemoan this fact and get their team of lawyers to fine tooth comb this. So in the short term, more than likely this story is a nothing burger. But it absolutely is telling in that long term, these giants are on borrowed time afforded to them by their lawyers. The EU, US, pretty much everyone in BRICS, and others are exasperated by how much these companies have stomped competition. But in all fairness, it was these same countries that were trying to hands off and tacitly handed the thing these governments are hating on to these giants. So to me I lot of all of this feels like these countries were all "Oh that's great you should grow into a big powerful company! (years later. . .) Not like that!" They are reaping what they sowed and hating every minute of it, trying to burn the field down, and perhaps try again (more than likely to get the exact same results).
So sure the CCI can hand down whatever. Nothing is going to come of it anytime soon and gives these companies plenty of time to figure out what the "next step" is and to start moving their cash hoard around to fund it. By the time something actually comes in and makes sweeping changes, they've already hedged everything to make the change as easy to stomach as possible.
A lot of merit, but one catch... (Score:2)