Five Key Amendments in Indian Competition Law (2023–2025) and Their Impact on Digital Platforms

The Indian competition law framework has undergone sweeping changes between 2023 and 2025. The amendments are aimed at aligning the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with the challenges posed by digital markets, data-driven business models, and globalized mergers. For digital platforms—whether e-commerce marketplaces, app stores, search engines, ride-hailing services, or fintech intermediaries—these reforms are highly significant. They reshape the deal-approval process, expand liability for anti-competitive conduct, and introduce new tools for both enforcement and compliance.

1. Deal Value Threshold and Substantial Business Operations in India (SBOI)

What changed

The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 introduced a new deal value threshold (DVT) for merger control. Transactions valued above INR 2,000 crore must now be notified to the CCI if the target has substantial business operations in India (SBOI). To operationalize this, the Combination Regulations, 2024 clarified that SBOI in the digital sector may be established if at least 10% of global users or business users are located in India, or if local turnover/GMV crosses certain limits.

Additionally, the maximum timeline for merger review has been reduced from 210 to 150 days, with the CCI required to form a prima facie view within 30 days. There is also a limited relaxation of the suspensory regime for open-market stock acquisitions, provided voting rights are not exercised until clearance.

Impact on digital platforms

This amendment squarely targets the acquisition of innovative but low-revenue digital startups—often described as “killer acquisitions.” Under the earlier regime, such transactions often escaped scrutiny because the targets lacked significant turnover or assets in India, even if they had a massive user base. Now, digital platforms cannot rely on low turnover to avoid CCI review.

Global tech companies acquiring India-heavy startups, gaming platforms, or AI tools with a growing local user base must prepare for notification. For digital firms, it means earlier competition law due diligence and more detailed mapping of Indian user share, GMV, and turnover. Although the shortened review period is commercially helpful, the process demands front-loaded preparation, including data-room readiness and overlap analysis at the negotiation stage.

2. Penalties Linked to Global Turnover

What changed

Historically, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Excel Crop Care, penalties in India were confined to “relevant turnover”—i.e., the revenue derived from the product or service involved in the contravention. The 2023 Amendment overturned this principle, empowering the CCI to levy fines based on a company’s global turnover derived from all products and services. This represents a significant expansion of penalty exposure.

In 2024, the CCI issued Penalty Guidelines to provide structure in determining fines, with factors such as gravity of conduct, duration, cooperation, and corrective measures influencing quantum.

Impact on digital platforms

For multinational platforms with modest Indian revenues but substantial global sales, this change is transformative. A conduct case in India—for instance, allegations of self-preferencing in search results or exclusionary rules in app stores—could now result in fines calculated on a worldwide revenue base. The deterrent effect is dramatic.

This amendment compels digital firms to reassess compliance risk. Product rollouts, contractual clauses, and API policies in India must be vetted with global penalty exposure in mind. Boards and audit committees need to update internal risk registers and provisioning models, as even a localised infringement can have multi-billion-dollar consequences.

3. Settlement and Commitment Mechanisms

What changed

• One of the most forward-looking reforms is the introduction of Settlement and Commitment mechanisms, operational since March 2024. These mechanisms apply to vertical restraints (Section 3(4)) and abuse of dominance cases (Section 4), but not to cartels.
• Commitments can be offered at an early stage, before the Director General’s investigation report.
• Settlements are available post-investigation, allowing parties to resolve proceedings through corrective measures and payment of a settlement fee.
• Proceedings are suspended while the CCI considers the application. The Commission can appoint monitors and revoke approvals for non-compliance or misrepresentation.
• In 2025, the CCI accepted a settlement proposal in a prominent case involving a global tech company’s smart-TV operating system, demonstrating the practical use of this tool.

Impact on digital platforms

• Before 2024, digital platforms facing allegations of abuse had only two options: litigate to a full order or withdraw practices under informal pressure. Now, there is a structured path to negotiate remedies and limit financial exposure. For tech companies facing challenges around default settings, app store restrictions, bundling of services, or access to APIs, this is a major development.
• The possibility of settlement encourages proactive engagement with the regulator. However, it also raises strategic considerations: a settlement in India could be viewed as an admission by foreign regulators or civil plaintiffs, creating global implications. Careful coordination of remedies across jurisdictions is therefore essential.

4. Leniency-Plus and Enhanced Cartel Enforcement

What changed

The Lesser Penalty Regulations, 2024 formally introduced a Leniency-Plus regime. An applicant already seeking leniency for one cartel can disclose the existence of another unrelated cartel and receive additional penalty reductions for both. The framework also clarifies procedural aspects, cooperation requirements, and confidentiality protections.

Impact on digital platforms

Although most digital competition cases involve dominance or vertical restraints, cartel risks exist in adjacent markets—for example, in online advertising, media buying, app distribution, or even cloud-service procurement. The Leniency-Plus provision creates a strong incentive for firms to self-report cartels quickly, knowing that rivals may rush to do the same.

For platforms, this change increases the need for compliance protocols around trade associations, pricing discussions, and information exchanges. Even inadvertent data-sharing among sellers on a marketplace could trigger scrutiny. Internal dawn-raid preparedness and whistleblower protection mechanisms must be strengthened to respond swiftly if exposure is detected.

5. Hub-and-Spoke and Facilitator Liability

What changed

The 2023 Amendment explicitly recognised hub-and-spoke cartels and facilitator liability. This closes earlier gaps where only “direct” agreements among competitors were clearly captured. Under the amended Section 3, non-competitors such as platforms, intermediaries, or technology providers may be liable if they enable or orchestrate coordination among competitors.

Impact on digital platforms

This change is of particular relevance to digital marketplaces, app stores, ride-hailing platforms, food-delivery apps, and payment gateways. A platform that provides dashboards suggesting “recommended prices,” imposes most-favoured-nation clauses, or facilitates cross-seller communication may now be treated as a “hub” enabling cartel conduct.

The risk is not theoretical: algorithmic tools, pricing policies, and contractual parity clauses can be characterised as facilitating horizontal alignment. The CCI can now explicitly rope in platforms even when they are not competitors of the “spokes.”

Digital firms should conduct hub-risk audits of their pricing, data-sharing, and recommendation systems. Features should be designed with clear consumer-welfare justifications and with safeguards that preserve independent decision-making by sellers or service providers.

Practical Guidance for Digital Platforms

1. Merger Planning: Incorporate DVT and SBOI checks into global deal assessments. Map Indian user share and GMV early to avoid last-minute surprises.
2. Compliance Risk Management: Adjust internal compliance programmes to reflect global turnover-based penalties. Escalate India risks to group-level boards.
3. Remedy Preparation: Develop a menu of potential remedies (API access commitments, unbundling, data-use firewalls) that can be quickly offered under the settlement framework.
4. Cartel Preparedness: Train employees on leniency triggers and ensure policies governing trade associations, chats, and dashboards are robust.
5. Hub-Risk Audits: Scrutinise platform features that might resemble coordination tools. Introduce transparency, opt-outs, and unilateral policy framing.

Conclusion

The amendments enacted between 2023 and 2025 mark a decisive shift in Indian competition law towards a more agile, deterrent, and digital-aware regime. The new deal value threshold ensures that acquisitions of user-rich startups are not missed. The expansion of penalties to global turnover significantly raises the stakes for multinational firms. Settlement and commitment options provide pragmatic resolution tools, while Leniency-Plus strengthens cartel detection. Finally, hub-and-spoke liability squarely places digital intermediaries within the enforcement net.

For digital platforms, the message is clear: compliance is no longer optional or localised. Strategic decisions about acquisitions, product designs, and contractual terms must now integrate competition-law risk at the global boardroom level. Those who adapt early—by institutionalising compliance and preparing remedy playbooks—will be best positioned to innovate in India’s rapidly evolving digital economy.