Google, Meta and other large technology companies have asked the government to tone down provisions of the proposed Digital Competition Bill (DCB), Moneycontrol reported on October 6. This demand differs from the stance of over 40 Indian startups, which have called on the government to implement preventive regulations for large digital platforms.

The companies raised their concerns at consultations held in September by the Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurugram, which is running the government’s market study on the bill for the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Large technology companies accept an ex-ante regulatory regime in principle, a person with direct knowledge of the consultations told Moneycontrol. “The responses will be sent to MCA for further examination,” the person added.

What companies asked for:

  • An appeal route: A clear mechanism to contest designation as a Systemically Significant Digital Enterprise (SSDE), especially when a company believes it lacks significant market presence in a service.
  • India-specific evidence: Evidence of repeated violations or market failures in India before the government imposes preventive obligations.
  • No transplanting: A study of India’s market structure before adopting rules from other jurisdictions.
  • Proportionate obligations: Lower compliance costs and fewer restrictions on business practices.

Representatives of large technology companies cited the European Union’s (EU) experience. “During the consultations held in September, industry cited the example of the EU, where similar ex-ante rules were introduced. It was also argued that so far there is no evidence from the EU that the rules have had any significant impact,” the person said.

What the bill proposes: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) currently acts after it finds anti-competitive conduct. The DCB would let the government designate large platforms as SSDEs based on financial, user or qualitative criteria. Designated companies would face restrictions on favouring their own products, combining user data, and restricting third-party apps, without any prior finding of abuse.

“The tech companies are primarily concerned about regulatory uncertainty, due process and proportionality of the obligations under the DCB,” Abhay Joshi, Partner, Economic Laws Practice, told Moneycontrol.

Parliamentary panel also sought an appeals mechanism: The Standing Committee on Finance flagged the missing appeal route in its Thirty-Seventh Report, presented to Parliament on August 10, 2026. The Committee noted that the DCB lacks the rebuttal mechanism available under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). Under the DCB’s proposed framework, a company could qualify for designation by crossing either the end-user or business-user threshold, while the DMA applies a different set of designation criteria. The Committee asked the MCA to “refine the DCB’s thresholds and designation mechanisms” to prevent the “inadvertent” capture of fast-growing Indian firms.

The Committee still backed the bill. It called for a “fundamental shift from a reactive to a proactive, ex-ante regulatory framework” and asked the government to extend the DCB to virtual assistants and cloud services.

What startups have asked for: “Ex-post (enforcement) does not work in digital markets. That is why we supported the ex-ante framework,” said Murugavel Janakiraman, Founder, Bharat Matrimony.

The government paused the bill’s ex-ante provisions in 2025, citing concerns that broad thresholds could sweep in Indian startups and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). Startups including Bharat Matrimony, TrulyMadly and MagicBricks opposed the pause. Their asks:

  • Higher thresholds: “Raise the thresholds to match Europe so only the largest players are caught,” Janakiraman said.
  • A rebuttal mechanism: Janakiraman called for an EU-style route to challenge wrongful designation as an SSDE.
  • A dedicated digital regulator: “There should be a dedicated branch inside or outside CCI for the digital ecosystem. As our ecosystem grows, we need the personnel and resources to regulate it properly,” said Snehil Khanor, Co-Founder, TrulyMadly.
  • A fair market study: Founders asked the MCA to include smaller firms in the study and require bidders to disclose their funding.

Enforcement gaps: Stakeholders also questioned whether an ex-ante regime would address existing enforcement bottlenecks, including vacancies at the CCI, limited NCLAT capacity and prolonged litigation. The Parliamentary Committee’s report puts numbers to these gaps:

  • The CCI had filled 113 of 195 sanctioned posts as of March 31, 2024.
  • Its Digital Markets Division, set up in September 2024, has a core team of seven.
  • As of April 30, 2025, penalties totalling Rs 18,512.28 crore out of the Rs 20,350.46 crore imposed by the CCI had reportedly been stayed or set aside on appeal.

“Any regulatory changes, whether it be an ex-ante legislation or otherwise, should be firmly grounded in evidence from Indian markets and informed by recent amendments to the Competition Act. This should go hand in hand with strengthening the CCI’s capacity, building the newly established Digital Markets Division and improving the capacity and efficiency of the NCLAT,” Saharsh Panjwani, Senior Research Associate at The Dialogue, told Moneycontrol.

Two years in limbo: After the 2025 pause, the MCA floated a Request for Proposal (RFP) on November 3, 2025, for the study on SSDE thresholds and core digital services that MDI is now conducting.

Also read: