The session commenced with an emphasis on the pivotal role of the government in promoting good governance, particularly through competition reforms. Drawing upon the case of Kazakhstan, concerns were raised regarding the monopolistic tendencies in the gig economy, specifically in taxi and food delivery services where a single company holds an 80 percent market share and does not have a registered office in the country. Grievances from both consumers and workers highlighted issues, such as the absence of redressed mechanisms and the need for an antitrust framework. The call for multidimensional good governance was stressed for a fair and competitive gig economy.

The discussion shifted towards the concept of supply chain abuses, encompassing violations, such as bonded labour, child employment, and theft of raw materials. The panellists underscored the significant impact on competitive markets, with supply chain abuses providing unfair advantages to companies at the expense of legitimate competitors. Competition law should extend its enforcement to ensure fair employment opportunities.

Examining digital monopsony, the session also outlined prerequisites for monopsony buyer’s power and explored Uber's pricing strategies through its "Hell Programme." The debate considered the potential welfare effects and the digital platform's capacity to engage in personalised pricing. It was acknowledged that traditional legal countermeasures might not be effective, prompting a call for vigilant scrutiny by competition agencies.

A critical aspect of the discussion focussed on the need for competition law in protecting gig workers' rights, citing examples from South Africa. Anticompetitive practices by major platforms, lack of collective bargaining, and unjust terminations were identified as challenges. The call for a labour exception and coordinated efforts among competition authorities to address gig workers' exploitation was emphasised.

The focus shifted to Russia's gig economy, where major players negatively impacted workers' welfare. Algorithmic pricing, lack of transparency, and unfair levy fees were identified as critical issues. The panellists advocated for recognition of the dependency relationship between platforms and gig workers.

The session also explored the emerging roadmap for gig workers' welfare. The discussion underscored the need to look at the gig economy from the lens of contractual employment, which is not new but has been omnipresent in our traditional markets. The role of technology in labour markets, algorithmic transparency, and the importance of a fair determination process were highlighted. The session concluded with a call for forward-looking regulations, emphasising the complexity of modern markets and the need for interdisciplinary expertise.

In summary, the session provided a holistic examination of the gig economy, emphasising the interplay of competition, regulation and governance. It underscored the need for adaptive regulatory frameworks to address challenges unique to the digital landscape, ensuring fair competition, protecting workers' rights, and promoting economic and worker welfare. 

On the panel were: Bipul Chattopadhyay, Executive Director, CUTS International; Marat Omarov, Chairman, Agency for Protection and Development of Competition of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Uma Rani, Senior Economist, Research, International Labour Office (ILO) HQ, Geneva; Joseph Wilson, Executive Director, Markets for Social Justice and Adjunct Professor, McGill University, Canada; Thomas Cheng, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong; Vellah Kedogo Kigwiru, Doctoral Research Fellow, Technical University of Munich School of Governance; Daria Kotova, Expert, BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre

The session gave insights into the interface between sustainability competition policy and some critical global issues, such as greenwashing, climate finance, concerns of small islands, green technology transfer to the global south etc. 

Competition and sustainability are not mutually exclusive goals, but rather complementary objectives that can be pursued in tandem. In this context, the ‘Competition Law Plus’ approach is worth mentioning. This concept goes beyond the traditional competition analysis while assessing mergers, collaborations or market conduct and takes into account the potential effect on environmental sustainability, consumer welfare, income distribution and well-being of the vulnerable communities. Consumers must be the main beneficiaries of the competition law. 

The poor progress towards the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across the countries was flagged and called for re-examining strategies, including those related to policy fragmentation. The SDGs are highly interrelated and cannot be assessed in isolation. To resolve the inconsistency in the sustainability goals, there is a need to move away from a narrow definition of welfare to a broader understanding of well-being achieved through the integration of sustainability and competition law. Global cooperation is mooted in this regard. 

The session also discussed the menace of ‘Greenwashing.’ The market operators have adopted a new strategy to gain market value and attract investment. They claim themselves to be environment-friendly and portray their performance along the lines of sustainability without clear evidence. This phenomenon has severe implications for consumers as well as business players. The trust of consumers and the efforts of companies genuinely trying to address climate issues are getting diluted by false or exaggerated claims. The consumer and competition authorities have an important role to play in terms of keeping a sharp eye on the companies, reporting false claims and setting up the guidelines to avoid greenwashing. 

The session has been equally vocal about the challenges faced by the small island countries in the face of climate change. The sea level rise, livelihood losses, disrupted marine ecosystem, and inundation of the lands are posing a double threat to such small economies that suffer from the limited market size, limited economic opportunities and the resultant outmigration. Fighting against climate threats is also difficult for island countries due to a lack of climate finance, a disintegrated administrative system due to geographical factors, and a lack of infrastructure for building resilience. While these small islands contribute less to the total global emissions, the impact of climate change is very high leading to climate injustice. The discussion has placed the competition policy in the green technology transfer framework needed by the island countries. 

The session also discussed how to reconcile ESG efforts with competition law. ESG focuses on promoting environmental sustainability, social responsibility and ethical governance practices. None of them can be achieved alone by a firm and may require coordinated efforts. Such coordinated efforts at the industry level need not be treated as collusive under competition law. Some guardrail by competition authorities can give useful space within which industries can develop voluntary code of conducts to achieve ESG objectives. A regulatory dialogue between regulators and stakeholders is necessary in this regard.  

On the panel were: Augustine Peter, Head, AP Regulatory Law Practice and former Member, Competition Commission of India; Willard Mwemba, Director and Chief Executive Officer, COMESA Competition Commission; Joel Abraham, Chief Executive Officer, Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission; Hee-Eun Kim, Director of Competition Policy – Asia Pacific, Meta; Elena Rovenskaya, Programme Director, Advancing Systems Analysis, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria; Ettore Lombardi, Professor of Private Law and International Business Law, University of Florence School of Law, Italy; Rijit Sengupta, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Responsible Business, New Delhi. 

This session explored the competition and regulatory issues within the telecommunications and digital economy sectors. ICT has emerged as a pivotal driver of the global economy’s transition towards a digital economy. This makes it imperative to deal with the regulatory and competition challenges poised to influence the digital economies, particularly in developing nations. The panel deliberated on the existing or potential competition and regulatory issues arising from 6G, cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and digital financial services, among others.

It was highlighted that 6G communications, which is likely to roll out in 2030 may present competition concerns arising from the convergence of telecom, cyber, and digital services. Telecom and digital markets are concentrated with a rise in vertical integration risks, leading to competition concerns, including abuse of dominance. Competition issues related to net neutrality and Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and its Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) use, may escalate with the advent of 6G. In addition, the potential competition issues in 6G may relate to cloud services and the integration of AI in networks. Shortage of technological expertise and uneven access to capital may retard market competition in the 6G ecosystem.

Focusing on the competition issues due to the convergence of telecom and digital technologies, it was pointed out that there has to be a clear demarcation of these issues across three distinct tiers, viz, the overarching digital market, competition within the telecom network, and competition among services and applications. On the other hand, in the case of the regulatory challenges in developing countries, it was pointed out that these issues arise from over-regulation, under-regulation, poor design and implementation challenges. The introduction of the deal value threshold in Indian competition law and its implementation design can be cited as an example in this regard. 

Talking about competition issues in digital finance services, it was highlighted that competition is not just about creating efficiency in markets, but also about enabling financial inclusion including insurance and banking services. However, challenges include entry barriers, stringent regulations, market dominance, capital prerequisites, and anticompetitive practices like refusal to supply rivals, preferential treatment, and payment settlement restrictions.

As far as ex-ante regulation of digital markets is concerned, the adoption of a soft law approach was emphasised. The strategy should also include robust competition enforcement. Co- or self-regulation, guided by the principles of social responsibility, was also flagged as a better approach. 

On the experience of AI regulation in China, it was highlighted that the regulation has been framed on ethical governance principles along three tiers, i.e. Risk Control, Governance System and Guide Development. These include inclusiveness & sharing, harmony & friendliness, collaboration, privacy, safety, security, transparency, explainability, reliability, fairness, shared responsibility and agile governance. Another key component in ensuring a responsible digital economy is cybersecurity. Underlining the need for effective and expanding international cybersecurity relationships, it was emphasised that there has to be a balance between fostering indigenous capabilities and self-reliance and forming international alliances. 

The panel's recommendations highlighted the importance of proactive ex-ante regulation, facilitated by market studies and competition advocacy, to navigate the evolving digital and telecom landscape effectively. Collaboration with international organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is crucial for global alignment. Embracing OpenRAN and interoperability facilitates equitable competition and innovation in the digital ecosystem. In the context of platform neutrality, it was pointed out that there is a need to achieve equitable interoperability, ensuring that different entities can operate on equal terms with technical compatibility.

Additionally, it is essential to prevent overlapping jurisdiction among regulatory bodies, encouraging coordination between various bodies. The establishment of a self or co-regulation framework and the involvement of joint third-party bodies for adjudication were also emphasised to ensure a fair and well-regulated environment. Capacity building and international collaboration were recognised as crucial elements in competition regulations for digital markets. The role of the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre in this regard was praised. 

On the panel were: Kiran N Meetarbhan, Barrister at Law and former Executive Director, Competition Commission of Mauritius; Andrey Tsyganov, Deputy Head, Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), Russia; Farrukh Karabaev, Deputy Chairman, Competition Promotion and Consumer Protection Committee, Uzbekistan; Greg Austin, Co-founder, Social Cyber Group, Australia; Deepak Maheshwari, Senior Visiting Fellow, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER); Jia Kai, Leading Research Fellow, BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre and Associate Professor, University of Electronic Science and Technology, China; Nicolo Zingales, FGV Direito Rio, Brazil; Ariadne Plaitakis, Senior Programme Officer, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Rahul Rai, Partner, Axiom5 Law Chambers; Vinitesh Kumar, General Manager, Fijian Competition and Consumer Commission; and Ujjwal Kumar, Associate Director, CUTS International.

The two-day conference embarked on a crucial exploration of contemporary challenges —communicable diseases, pandemics, cyber-security, climate change, and technological upheavals — impacting vulnerable segments, particularly the underprivileged. This prompted a call for new approaches to competition regulations, emphasising inclusivity, market equity, and sustainability. Competition authorities were recognised as pivotal in shaping the future.

Six sessions delved into multifaceted issues: Polycrisis and Social Welfare, Healthcare, Food and Agriculture, Employment, Sustainability and Climate Change, culminating in the Gig and the Digital Economy. The discourse unveiled challenges like new competition dynamics, concentrated markets, excessive pricing, and monopolistic behaviour.

Solutions proposed encompassed strengthened law enforcement, expanded merger regimes, soft law strategies (self-regulation, co-regulation), and adoption of industrial policies. Protection of gig workers' rights, understanding digital platforms, and revising consumer welfare standards for sustainability were underscored.

There is a near consensus that the goal of competition law should be broader and need not be confined to mere consumer gains. Equity and inclusivity need to be reflected in competition policy apart from efficiency. Prioritising socially sensitive sectors is a low-hanging fruit, and should be the first step. 

Emphasis was bestowed upon the need for a whole-of-government ex-ante competition policy approach rather than only relying upon competition law enforcement to make markets work in sensitive sectors. 

The importance of regional competition authorities and international cooperation were flagged as necessary elements in addressing fallouts of polycrisis. The road ahead requires collaborative efforts, innovative tools, and a commitment to address evolving challenges. 

On the panel were: Allan Asher, Chair, Fairer Future and Chair and Managing Consultant, Foundation for Effective Markets and Governance (FEMAG), Australia; Frederic Jenny, Chairman, OECD Competition Law and Policy Committee;  Teresa Moreira, Head, Competition and Consumer Policy Branch, Division on International Trade and Commodities, UNCTAD;  Eleanor Fox, Walter J Derenberg Professor of Trade Regulation Emerita, New York University School of Law;  Sothi Rachagan, Emeritus Professor, Nilai University, Malaysia and former Commissioner, MyCC;  Augustine Peter, Head, AP Regulatory Law Practice and former Member, Competition Commission of India;  Tembinkosi Bonakele, former Chairperson, Competition Commission of South Africa; Alexey Ivanov, Director, BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre; Thomas Cheng, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong; and Navneet Sharma, Director General, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition (CIRC).
 

---

---