REGULATION OF ONLINE MARKETPLACES: ANTITRUST CONCERNS AND COMPETITION LAW

Introduction-

Online marketplaces have evolved rapidly in the online economy, reinverting the buying and selling of goods and services (Beard, 2024). By working as mild men and bring consumers and sellers together digitally, these online marketplaces enable transactions between countries (What is a Marketplace? Marketplace Model eCommerce Solutions | Clarity, 2024). A virtual platform that links many purchases and sellers of goods and services and fosters transactions that occur between them are referred to as an online marketplace (Marketplaces vs platforms: What’s the difference? | Stripe, 2023). These platforms usually provide the services needed to list goods, handle payments, handle logistics; they frequently change commissions or extra fee for every purchase. (OECD, 2019)

Marketplaces online may assume multiple shapes, which are usually categorised broadly into:

Business- to – consumers (B2C): organisations sell directly to prospects (Marketplaces vs platforms: What’s the difference? | Stripe, 2023). Amazon, Flipkart, and Alibaba’s Tmall are several examples.

Business – to – business(B2B): companies send products and amenities with other ones. Industry net and is a example of this.

Consumer to consumer (C2C): people trade with other people. Facebook marketplace, Etsy, and eBay are a few examples (Statista, no date).

These online markets have a significant effect on the economy. E- commerce sales has been expanding rapidly globally, and predictions indicates this trend will keep growing (ECommerce sales & size Forecast, no date). Internet – based marketplaces are expected to provide an important percentage of the trillions of dollars in worldwide sales from online retailers that are anticipated to occur in the upcoming years, according to statistics (Topic: E-commerce worldwide, 2024). The development has increased customer flexibility and convenient, sparked innovation in cash and transport network, and produce new employment opportunities.

Online market has been defined by their presence of influential “network effects.” Because of these impacts, the system’s value rises as numerous individuals sign up. More sellers interpret into more options and more affordable prices for customers. A wider range of buyers more sales prospects for sellers. “Winner- takes-all” or “winner takes most” situlas, where just a few of powerful platforms grab a significant portion of the market for themselves, can result from these beneficial feedback cannels. In 2003, rochet and triple. There are serious antitrust with that concentration of market power.

His focus often triggers “gatekeeper” structures show up. Because of their grandeur and dominance of the market, these kinds of platforms have access to a lot of companies as well as customers. According to the process of digitising market act, the European commission regulation gatekeepers as places that have an important effect on the internal European market, act as an essential conduit for organisations to establish relationships with the general public and have a strong and a century- old position in the industry. Commission for Europe 2020 these social media networks have a lot of market power given that they are gatekeepers, that their user can abuse and algae in anti- competitive conduct.

The main topic of this ice is the inherent disagreement that arises in ecommerce platforms between advising innovation and averting anti-competitive behaviour. Though these websites have obviously benefited both nosiness’s and customers in numerous ways, their expanding dominance of the market raises the risk of unfair behaviour that could hinder innovation, hurt smaller competitors and eventually decrease the interest of customers (ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES OF E-COMMERCE GIANTS: THE IMPACT OF AMAZON AND FLIPKART ON MARKET COMPETITION AND SME RETAILERS BY: SURESH, no date). Underling antitrust issues educated by internet trading business will be delt with in this article, which includes predatory pricing, exclusive data exploitation, self-preferring, and buying and selling. Upon that, it will focus on how competition law can assist with these issues despite taking consideration the difficulties in conventional antitrust law fundamentals to the particulars of electronic markets. The essay will additionally delve over recently changes to regulations, like the EU’s digital AI market act, and how they might affect online marketplaces in the future. The article will end by providing a few concepts on how to balance encaging inventiveness with maintaining equitable rivalry in the rapidly modifying digital age.

Keywords

digital advertising, Google Shopping Case, Amazon Buy Box, statute, online marketplace, Digital Markets Act (DMA), Digital Services Act (DSA), Competition Authorities, Price Parity Clauses, network effect, alteration

Antitrust Concerns in Online Marketplaces

The major antitrust problems obtained by how online marketplace will be addressed in this portion of the article. Dominant tools may engage in behaviours that in therefore with customer satisfaction and competitors.

Selfreferencing, which transpires when a platform operator benefits its own offerings over those of outside vendors, is an enormous concern. come up in a variety of ways. For instance, according to Ezrachi and Stucke (2016), platforms may give preference to their own products in search results, even when they are not more relevant or best-selling. use prominent placement and labels, such as “the e-commerce choice” or “Best Seller” badges, and or display products from their own brands at the top of result for search, which unfairly favor individual items, corresponding to the OECD (2019). Another instance of self- preferring that gives apps a detrimental advantage is pre – installing apps on machines sold by means of platforms as well as displayed in the European Commission’s Google Android case. Limiting independent goods or the services’ compatibility with the platform’s hold gifts also counts in this category.

These sorts of decisions can damage rivals for decreased their revenues and transprncy, which could push them out of a company. According to the CMA’s interest websites and online advertisement market study, this might result in fewer options for consumers, increased costs, and a curtailment of innovation. It’s critical to make the distinction between permitted a platform design decision and self-preferencing that is anti-competitive. Platforms have the right to present their brands and are organised what they provide. Geradin, LayneFarrar, and Petit (2012) claim that the important distinction is whether the preferential treatment is founded on the system’s own commercial objectives or on objective standards (such as the product’s quality or buyer analyses).

The topic of solely dealing and tying is yet another issue. Excluding dealing, as stated by Hovenkamp (2017), happens when platforms demand that sellers trade their product only on their chosen platform or discourage them to continue marketplace on other platforms that are competing. As presented by Whish and Bailey (2018), tying, on the other your hands entails tying the selling of a single item or service (the tying product) to the purchase of a second particular item or service that is (the tied product). Examples of this involve compelling merchants to use the platform’s logistics facilities simply or to include products connected.

These actions can stop rival apps and organisations from finding the market, cutting consumer choice and hindering competitors. When exclusive dealing reduces a significant part of a market, significantly affects competition, and is missing objective justification, it is usually viewed as restrictive. As the OECD’s Roundtable on Exclusive Dealing examines, factors like the platform’s level of market share, the period of exclusivity compromises, and entry requirements are valuable.

Further challenges include data exploitation and anti-competitive data use. An immense amount of data can be collected by auction sites about provider sales, buying habits, behaviour of consumers, and payments.Although platforms can use this data to enhance services and customise user experiences, issues occur when they disproportionately compete with merchants or eliminate opposition in nearby the markets. For illustration, a platform might use knowledge about the performance of sellers to unfairly disadvantage them or use information about successful thirdparty products to create its own competing goods.According to Calvano et al. (2020), access platform data may in certain instances be regarded as a “vital facility,” and that means that it is necessary for businesses to compete, as stated in the power source First Report of known as Digital Competition Expert Panel (Furman Report).It could therefore be deemed assault dominance to deny anyone access to information

Potential anti-competitive practices include predatory pricing and below-cost selling goods.According to the essential serve of Areeda and Turner (1975), abusive pricing is the behaviour of subsequently offering commodities below cost in consume to entice adversaries off with the goal of raising cost once the competition is wiped out. Showing abusive purpose in online markets, nonetheless, can be tough given that it needs proving an identified plan to crush opposition and the capacity utilisation to bounce back losses by way of thereafter price improves.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A), in particular “killer acquisitions,” also improve antitrust problems. “Killer acquisitions” relate to the buying of emerging or an opportunity opponent by dominant websites to prevent individuals from ending up an affordable threat, as dealt with by Cunningham, Ederer, and The company (2021). These buying businesses can stifle innovation and reduce consumer choice. Merger control experts play a crucial role in reviewing offered combinations to assure they do not strongly lessen competition, assessing factors such as sale concentration and potential illegal impacts.

At last, another field of concern is price- parity clauses, referred to as most-favoured-nation clauses. Sellers are required by these clauses to offer the same or lower prices on the platform as they do elsewhere. These provisions may limit sellers’ ability to provide discounts elsewhere and lessen price competition between platforms, as covered in the OECD’s Roundtable on Cost Parity Arrangements. There are contentions for and against the legality of their Supporters contend they will stop reckless behaviour, while challengers contend that they hinder invention and lessen rivalry in prices.

The material has been shown in paragraphs in this revised form, which makes it easier to understand and is perfect for an article. You can still cite correctly your sources given that the references are still the same as before.

The Role of Competition Laws

The cornerstone of legislative efforts to maintain an open and free market is competition law, which becomes especially important when it comes to e- commerce platforms (Upes, 2025). These online venues shortage to be carefully studies pursuant to current along with evolving competitive in the marketplace. (Stakheyeva, 2025)

Key Legal Framework

Competitionis subject to by plenty that are significant regulatory structures that vary among states. The Sherman act 1906 and the act of clayton are the two main antitrust laws in the us enacted in 1890, the Sherman act, prohibits monopolies, attempts to monopolies, or conspiracies against in limitation of trade (sec.2) besides contracts, combinations, and conspiracy theories in limitation of trade(sec.1) (Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890), 2022).by dealing with a specific unlawful behaviours like disparities in prices, tying agreements, and combinations that drastically decrease competition, the clayton act, passed in 1914, bring to the existing Sherman act (The antitrust laws, 2022).

Articles 101 as well as 102 of the Lisbon Treaty on the Effective of the European Union (TFEU) are the primary legislation that regulate the law of competition in the European Union (EU). Agreements between businesses are restricted by Article 101.
Activities that restrict competition, involving bid-rigging, market-sharing, and price-fixing. The improper utilisation of an advantageous position in the internal marketplace, which can involve procedures like exclusive dealing, tying, and predatory pricing, is forbidden by Article 102 of the Agreement. Because it addresses potential of unlawful competition by dominant devices, Article 102 particularly pertinent to the legislation of online markets.

Similar concerns are protected by the business laws of a number of nations, which includes the UK, Canada, Australia, and many more. These statutes frequently follow or were influenced by the rules set forth with EU and US competition law.

Challenges in Applying Traditional Antitrust Concepts

Applying traditional antitrust concepts, developed for offline markets, to the digital realm presents several significant challenges.

Defining Relevant Markets: The crucial initial phase in any antitrust law investigation involves identifying relevant markets. This frequently involves discovering alternative goods and services in an individual region in traditional markets. nevertheless, an abundance of factors have made it more difficult to determine relevant markets for electronic markets. A complex description of the market that occurs into account the relationships of dependence between multiple user groups is necessary for multiple-sided websites that cater to numerous user groups, which include buyers and sellers. Furthermore, standard geographic boundaries have been displaced by the around the globe reach of numerous websites. The market a description is made more complicated by the simple process of switching across online services.

Assessing Market Power: Another important problem involves determining market power, that is, the potential of a company maintain prices more than levels of rivals or to limit production. The consequences of relationships and data advantages in digital industries might not be adequately measured by standard metrics like market shares. the network effects, in which the price of the platform rises with every new subscriber, can give dominant platforms crucial authority advantages. A significant asset for businesses using the internet, details can also give those a big edge over others. Hence, an expanded approach that adopts all of those variables into thought is needed for calculating competitive advantage in digital markets in general.

Dealing with Multi-Sided Platforms: As stated before, platforms with several sides cater to different populations of users that engage with another group via the system’s interface. In antitrust law analysis, both of these complex connections must be considered when taking into account. To get plenty of users, an application will, for example, provide affordable rates to viewers. This would attract sellers to the platform for learning. To evaluate the prospect of anti-competitive conduct that it is essential that you understand these factors.

The Importance of “Dynamic Competition” and Innovation: Permanent competition and the present situation of the market are the primary subjects for conventional antitrust examination. But in rapidly developing online markets, “dynamic competition,” which highlights innovation and potential for future competitiveness, is becoming increasingly significant. Though they don’t instantly impact output or market prices, unfair trade practices may inhibit invention and adversely impact competition in years to come. The competition regulators are therefore required to take into account where platform practices effect long-term fluctuations in markets and inventiveness.

The Need for Ex-Ante Regulation: Permanent competition and the present situation of the market are the primary subjects for conventional antitrust examination. But in rapidly developing online markets, “dynamic competition,” which highlights innovation and potential for future competitiveness, is becoming increasingly significant. Though they don’t instantly impact output or market prices, unfair trade practices may inhibit inventiveness and adversely impact competition in years to come. Competitiveness regulators should therefore take seriously where platform procedures effect a long-term trend in markets and innovation.

Among reasons for ex-ante regulation are: Ex-ante (before regulations can stop anti-competitive behaviour before it appears, protecting consumers and rivalry against the damage that extended antitrust investigations can cause. Offering Businesses More Legal Accuracy: Corporations can better understand what is expected of them and guide clear of possible legal risks when ex-ante rules are provided with simple to understand. Permitting Quicker The marketplace Adjustments: By prohibiting inherited structures from participating in actions that hinder both creativity and competition, ex-antes regulation can help move the market move faster.

The following are some arguments against ex-ante regulation:

The potential of Stifling Innovation: By restricting platforms’ capacity to test out novel business concepts and services, overly restrictive regulations may impede innovation.
Regulatory Responsibility Creation: Businesses, in particular smaller platforms that might not have sufficient funds to adhere to detailed regulations, could be facing significant enforcement burdens as result of ex-ante governance.

Risk of Regulatory Capture: Alternative to encouraging competition, existing businesses may try to mould ex-ante rules to safeguard their dominant position in the market.

The digital market act (DMA) of the European Union is a leading instance of ex-ante regulations. Large internet websites that fit a certain mould based on their size, position in the market and clientele is also known as “security guards,” and they are obligated to responsibilities under the DMA. Self-pleading is prohibited, interoperability is required in some circumstances, and the use of data acquired from company users has restrictions, among several other responsibility. A major step towards assertive regulation regarding digital markets, the DMAis being carefully monitored by other countries interested in taking an equivalent attach.

Case Laws

The legal framework surrounding online auction sites has been heavily impacted by landmark cases, which have shown how competition regulation applies to particular platform prepares and supplied guidance on prospective enforcement. These cases deal with unfair practices such as data abuse, self-preferring, and binding.

This is Google’s Shopping app (2017): Google was given a penalty of €2.42 billion by the European Commission in a historic ruling for violating its dominance in internet searches. The main focus of the case was the Google self-preferring price comparison service in its search outcome. Google systematic gave its own service precedence, placing it highly prominent while demoting rival services, in relation to the commission’s conclusion. By incorporating traffic away from rivals, this gave Google an unfair edge. Self-promotion in online searches has the potential to be unfair to competitors, and Google Shopping sets a significant precedent for online platform regulating it. The obligation of prominent platforms to treat any businesses equally and refrain from violating their market power to stifle competition was reinforced. The need for equitable rivalry for companies that employ engines for search to reach customers is also revealed by the matter.

Amazon Buy Box Cases: Multiple enquiries and legal challenges have been directed towards Amazon’s “Buy Box,” which prominently displays a single seller’s offer. Whether Amazon’s own products or sellers who use its logistics services (FBA) receive advantages are among the issues regarding the criteria for winning Buy Box. the online retailer’s Buy Box algorithms have been accused of being biassed by rivals, soaking Amazon an unfair competitive advantage. fortunately, there isn’t a single, unambiguous court decision that addresses Buy Box’s equivalent to Google Shopping or Microsoft, national competition police have looked into these concerns in several kinds of searches (such as those conducted in Germany and Italy). The findings from these investigations demonstrate the significance of requiring platform algorithms to be affordable and equitable, as well as the possibility that they might facilitate anti-competitive self-preferencing. They draw highlight its importance of closely examining platform function and the design.

Together, these cases demonstrate how regulation and precedents in law are increasing to ensure equal play in online stores. By worrying both the challenges of applying normal antitrust principles to digital platforms and the necessity of constant evaluation and revision in competition law, they present helpful advice regarding dealing with unfair practices such as knotting, self-interest, and information misconduct.

Recent Developments

A shift regarding greater the intervention in order to promote level competition and safeguard the interests of shoppers has been shown by recent changes showing a significant rise in the oversight of online marketplaces all over the world. These advances include successful law enforcement by national competition government officials, current enquiries, and new laws.

Digital Markets Act (DMA): The DMA, an important piece legislation from the European Union, aims to regulate big digital marketplaces known as “gatekeepers.” In an attempt to stop competitive harm before it starts, the DMA gives a number of obligated and boundaries directly on these gatekeepers. Important clauses consist of:

Selfpreferring prohibitions: Gatekeepers are not allowed to give their choice to the products or services they sell over those of businesses that are utilising their platforms.This resolves issues brought up in situations such as Google Shopping Interoperability requirements: In some circumstances, gatekeepers must guarantee that their goods and services are suitable with the ones provided by other vendors in order to encourage service converting and advertise competitors.
Data use limitations: The Data Mining Act limits obstacles’ use of data acquired from businesses in order in order to contend with them and additionally prohibits them from combining personal data from multiple places without user authorisation.

As opposed to traditional ex-post antitrust compliance, the DMA’s ex-ante conduct seeks to level the playing field against businesses that contend with or depend on gatekeeper services.

Digital Services Act (DSA): The European Union (EU) The digital Services Act (DSA) makes platform responsibilities regarding illegal content and online safety, which complements the DMA’s promotion of competition. Online platforms are obligated by the DSA to prevent unlawful written material, including racist remarks and imitation products, and become more open concerning how they handle moderation techniques. Despite not having a direct focus on competitors, the DSA makes difficulties that may have an indirect effect on market dynamics and competition by contributing to an enhanced rules and regulations for internet platforms.

Antitrust Lawsuits and Investigations: There are several in progress antitrust investigations and complaints against crucial tech platforms about the world. These cases pertain to a range of alleged anti-competitive actions, such as data abuse, excluding dealing, tying, and self-pleading. Competition officials in a number of nations (such as the US, EU, UK, and others) carried out those investigations and litigation, which assist in establishing examples and offer further information on how the rules of competition should be interpreted by internet platforms.

Enforcement of National Competition Law: National competition officials are aggressively enacting current competition law in the digital sector, in addition to performing extensive enquiries and passing new laws. These regulating bodies are contributing to the intricate regulations through investigation onto platforms procedures within the areas they regulate. In order to successfully handle local economic conditions and make sure competition law is applied at the national level; this decentralised regulation is important.

All of these Recent occurrences point to a determined trend towards elevated regulatory surveillance of online marketplaces. A unified effort to address the issues obtained by the increasing dominance of online platforms as well maintain legitimate competition and safeguard the interest of customers in the age of technology is demonstrated by the incorporation of ex-ante statutes such as the DMA, in progress antitrust probes, and active national execution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, with formerly unattainable convenience and access to a worldwide market, the formation of online marketplaces undoubtedly influenced how we purchase and sell. However, there are substantial issues with a few numbers of strong platforms dominating the market. Self-preferencing, exclusive dealing, and the exploitation of vast information repositories are examples of practices that can hinder competition, penalize smaller companies, and eventually reduce customer choice. All of these challenges are difficult for traditional antitrust laws to adequately address because they were created for an economy that was primarily offline. Subtle methods are necessary to define pertinent markets in the digital sphere, evaluate market power in the face of network effects and data advantages, and comprehend the dynamics of multi-sided platforms.

An important change is the introduction of ex-ante rules, such as the EU’s Digital Markets Act. These guidelines seek to level up the playing field and increase a sustainable digital ecosystem by aggressively targeting the possible anti-competitive actions of dominating platforms. However, sustaining a delicate balance is necessary to navigate this changing terrain. Regulations that are excessively complex risk inhibiting innovation and impeding the same vitality that propels the digital economy. In order to be sure that such regulations are proper, efficient, and flexible enough to keep up with the quickly evolving digital landscape, cooperation between legislators, regulators, and industry stakeholders is essential.

This conclusion expands upon the one before it by: bringing to light all the challenges in enacting conventional antitrust statutes in the digital sphere. recognizing the possible hazards while highlighting the significance of ex-ante restrictions. emphasising the necessity for continual communication and cooperation between interested parties. enlarging the focus to cover the significance of enforcement, research, and creating an accessible online economy.

References

Beard, N.V. (2024) Unlocking the power of online marketplaces for businesses. https://www.bigcommerce.com/articles/omnichannel-retail/online-marketplaces/.
What is a Marketplace? Marketplace Model eCommerce Solutions | Clarity (2024). https://www.clarity-ventures.com/marketplace-ecommerce/what-is-a-marketplace#:~:text=An%20online%20marketplace%20is%20a%20virtual%20shopping%20market%20platform%20where,to%20sell%20and%20purchase%20items.
Marketplaces vs platforms: What’s the difference? | Stripe (2023). https://stripe.com/in/resources/more/marketplaces-vs-platforms#:~:text=A%20marketplace%20is%20a%20digital,bought%2C%20sold%2C%20and%20exchanged.
Business to Consumer (B2C) Definition and Examples (2025) (2024). https://www.shopify.com/blog/what-is-business-to-consumer-b2c-definition-and-guide.
Statista (no date) Statista – the statistics portal. https://www.statista.com/markets/413/topic/983/c2c-e-commerce/#:~:text=C2C%20e%2Dcommerce%20refers%20to,auction%20websites%2C%20or%20classified%20advertisements&text=C2C%20activities%20are%20carried%20out,and%20forums%20such%20as%20Craigslist.
ECommerce sales & size Forecast (no date). https://www.trade.gov/ecommerce-sales-size-forecast#:~:text=B2C%20eCommerce%20Forecast&Global%20B2C%20ecommerce%20revenue%20is,14.4%25%20compound%20annual%20growth%20rate.
Topic: E-commerce worldwide (2024). https://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping/#:~:text=In%202024%2C%20retail%20e%2Dcommerce,new%20heights%20in%20the%20coming.
ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES OF E-COMMERCE GIANTS: THE IMPACT OF AMAZON AND FLIPKART ON MARKET COMPETITION AND SME RETAILERS BY: SURESH (no date). https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuur=3663#:~:text=Without%20such%20control%2C%20these%20platforms,and%20disturbing%20fair%20competition%20in.
Upes (2025) Competition Law in India: Trends & Future Insights 2024. https://www.upes.ac.in/blog/law/competition-law-in-india-trends-and-future-perspectives.
Stakheyeva, H. (2025) Main developments in Competition Law and Policy 2024 – Türkiye – Kluwer Competition Law blog. https://competitionlawblog.kluwercompetitionlaw.com/2025/01/11/main-developments-in-competition-law-and-policy-2024-turkiye/.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) (2022). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act#:~:text=Any%20combination%20%22in%20the%20form,with%20foreign%20nations%22%20was%20declared.
The antitrust laws (2022). https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.