Target the real gatekeepers, not every company that happens to be large.
In the unfolding contest between digital giants and the smaller enterprises that must navigate their shadow, nearly forty Indian startups have stepped forward to demand that their government act before the damage is done rather than after. Writing to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in May 2024, they have endorsed a draft Digital Competition Bill that would shift India's regulatory posture from reactive punishment to proactive oversight. Their appeal reflects a deeper truth about the modern digital economy: that the rules of competition are often written by those who have already won it, and that the window to rewrite them rarely stays open for long.
- Forty startups are sounding an alarm — the longer the Digital Competition Bill is delayed, the more entrenched the monopolistic grip of big tech becomes on India's digital landscape.
- The coalition warns that established tech giants have a documented history of using consultation periods and procedural extensions as weapons of delay against antitrust action worldwide.
- At stake is a fundamental shift in how India regulates digital power: ex-ante rules would allow the Competition Commission to intervene before anti-competitive harm occurs, not years after startups have already been buried.
- The startups are not asking for sweeping regulation — they are urging the government to calibrate thresholds carefully so that only true internet gatekeepers, not ambitious mid-sized firms, fall under the new framework.
- The letter draws a clear battle line: on one side, resource-rich platforms that can shape the digital economy to their advantage; on the other, startups seeking a level playing field before the window closes.
Forty Indian startups — among them Matrimony.com, TrulyMadly, Magicbricks, and MediBuddy — have written to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with a pointed demand: pass the Digital Competition Bill without further delay, and do not allow big tech companies to stall it any longer.
The bill they are backing would introduce ex-ante regulation, a proactive framework that would allow India's Competition Commission to monitor large digital enterprises and intervene before anti-competitive behavior takes hold — a significant departure from the current system, which only acts after violations have already caused harm. For the startups, this distinction is everything. They describe the bill as a potential game-changer, a rare opportunity to challenge the dominance of platforms that control which apps rise, which get buried, and who ultimately survives in the digital economy.
Yet their support comes with a careful caveat. In their letter to Ministry Secretary Manoj Govil, the startups flagged that the current thresholds for identifying "Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises" are drawn too broadly. They fear that smaller but successful companies could be swept up in rules designed for true monopolists, and have proposed higher financial benchmarks and clearer user-count criteria to ensure the regulation hits its intended targets with precision.
Underlying the letter is a sense of urgency born from watching a familiar pattern play out globally — large tech companies using procedural delays and extended consultations to blunt regulatory momentum. The startups argue that the consultation period has already been generous, and that the moment for action is now. What their letter ultimately captures is a digital economy at a crossroads: one path leads toward entrenched platform dominance, the other toward a market where competition is genuinely possible.
Forty Indian startups have written to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with a single, urgent message: pass the digital competition bill now, and do not let the big tech companies delay it any further.
The startups—a coalition that includes Matrimony.com, TrulyMadly, Innov8, QuackQuack, Magicbricks, Hoichoi, and Medibuddy—are backing a draft bill that would introduce what regulators call "ex-ante" rules. The term is technical, but the idea is straightforward: instead of waiting for a company to break the rules and then punishing it, the government would watch large digital enterprises closely from the start and step in before anti-competitive behavior takes root. It is a shift from the current system, where India's Competition Commission intervenes only after the damage is done.
For these startups, the distinction matters enormously. They describe the bill as a potential "game-changer" for the Indian startup ecosystem, a way to finally rein in the monopolistic practices of the giants who control the digital landscape—the companies that can decide which apps get promoted, which get buried, which survive and which vanish. The startups say these gatekeepers have accumulated such vast resources and influence that they can shape the rules of the entire digital economy. A startup trying to compete against them operates in a rigged game.
But the startups are not asking for a blunt instrument. In their letter to Manoj Govil, Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, they have flagged a concern: the current thresholds for identifying what the bill calls "Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises"—the companies that would face the new rules—are set too low. They worry that smaller firms, even successful startups, could get caught in the net meant only for the true monopolists. They have proposed higher financial thresholds and specific numbers for user counts that would better reflect the actual landscape of Indian digital business. The goal is precision: target the real gatekeepers, not every company that happens to be large.
The startups are also pushing back against what they see as a pattern of obstruction. The big tech companies, they argue, have consistently employed delay tactics when faced with antitrust orders from regulators around the world. The consultation period for this bill has already been lengthy, the startups say. The time for further extensions has passed. Move forward.
What emerges from their letter is a portrait of an industry divided. On one side are the established giants, whose market power allows them to shape the rules in their favor. On the other are the startups and smaller digital enterprises, who see the bill as their only real chance to compete on something approaching level ground. The startups are betting that ex-ante regulation—the proactive kind—will finally give them that chance. They are asking the government to believe it too, and to act before the moment passes.
Notable Quotes
The digital competition bill, with its focus on ex-ante regulations, has the potential to be a game-changer for the Indian startup ecosystem.— The 40 startups in their joint letter to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs
By narrowly targeting the new law, the government can rein in monopolistic practices while making sure that Indian startups have the space to grow within India and beyond Indian borders.— The coalition of startups
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether the government steps in before or after a company breaks the rules?
Because by the time you prove a violation happened, the damage is already done. A startup has been squeezed out of the market, or users have been locked into a platform they can't leave. You can't undo that. Ex-ante regulation tries to prevent it from happening in the first place.
But won't that regulation also slow down the big companies, maybe even the startups?
That's the fear, yes. But the startups writing this letter think the current system—where you only act after harm occurs—is worse. It lets the giants move fast and break things, knowing they might face a fine years later. They want the rules clear upfront.
Why are they worried about the thresholds being too low?
Because if the law catches every moderately successful startup, it defeats the purpose. You want to regulate the true gatekeepers—the ones with enough power to shape the entire ecosystem. A startup with a million users is not the same as a platform with a billion.
And the delay tactics they mention—what does that look like?
Asking for more time to comment, requesting extensions, raising procedural objections. It's a way to push the decision further into the future, hoping political will fades or circumstances change. The startups are saying: we've waited long enough.
Do they think this bill will actually level the playing field?
They think it's the only tool that might. Right now, the giants can move faster than regulators can respond. This bill would let regulators move at the same speed—watching, intervening, setting boundaries before the damage spreads.