Big Tech Lobbying in India: market size versus monopoly power

India’s government has made a big bet on digitalisation. For more than a decade, the Modi government has taken on the Digital India Mission(opens in new window) to boost internet connectivity, digital public services, and the economy. That, alongside a 1.4 billion-strong population, makes India a highly desirable market for Big Tech firms.

This relationship has not always been smooth, as the Indian government at once welcomed the tech behemoths and put in place protections(opens in new window) for its internal market. With such a huge market, India was able to meet the companies on more level terms than most countries. Until the government tried to challenge Big Tech’s monopoly power, that is. The government then faced a bigger challenge than it expected, as Big Tech will protect this power at all costs.

The bill that threatened Big Tech’s dominance

In 2024, India joined the global efforts to regulate Big Tech monopolies. This followed growing concern over the anti-competitive behaviour of companies such as Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta. The proposed Digital Competition Bill (DCB)(opens in new window) was modelled on the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). It aimed to prevent anti-competitive conduct rather than merely chastise the companies after they had abused their market power.

Before the bill could even reach parliament, Big Tech’s lobby machine was in action.

According to a civil society researcher who has been involved in the DCB legislative process, Big Tech mounted a coordinated offensive, deploying well-established tactics that had worked in many other countries.

To start with, Google, Meta, and Uber(opens in new window) all pushed the line that the bill would stifle “innovation”, a word Big Tech has made synonymous with future economic prosperity. Google, referring to ex-ante regimes in other countries, argued that “rigid rules adversely impact product innovation and benefits to consumers.” Meta(opens in new window) warned of “the risk of inhibiting the growth and innovation of services and products in India.” Uber(opens in new window) similarly claimed that ex-ante regulations “may discourage innovation” and reduce incentives for companies to improve quality, efficiency, and processes.

A plethora of industry bodies and organisations augmented Big Tech’s direct lobbying. The claim that ex-ante regulation would crush innovation in India and harm foreign investment was pounded out repeatedly.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members(opens in new window) include Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Uber, argued(opens in new window) that the DCB’s “ex-ante regulations can dry up venture investments in tech start-ups” and claimed that the “creation of rigid pre-emptive standards under law carries the risk of having an adverse impact on investments, innovation, consumer choice and welfare,” echoing a narrative well-used in Europe around the DMA (see article on the EU).

American lobby groups were also active. The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)(opens in new window) , whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Uber, warned that the ex-ante regulations “could run the risk of harming Indian consumers, competition, and innovation.” The US-India Business Council(opens in new window) , part of the US Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that the DCB could lead to the targeted companies reducing their investment in India.

The narrative loop

Big Tech also financed a network of consultancies and think-tanks to shape public debate. Events, reports, and media briefings echoed platform narratives. A researcher who spoke to SOMO described glossy events and studies claiming that the DCB would raise consumer prices or harm innovation. For example, in April 2024, technology policy outlet MediaNama(opens in new window) organised an event titled “Decoding the Digital Competition Bill”, funded by companies including Meta and Google, who were also among the participants. MediaNama’s summary of the event(opens in new window) emphasised concerns about “over-regulation” and potential harm to “innovation”.

Big Tech could then cite these events and outputs to support their case, explained the researcher. “It’s a loop.”

And while Big Tech clearly funds some research and events, others may appear to offer objective and independent analysis. For example, the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE)(opens in new window) warned India against adopting laws similar to the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which “is overly stringent, ignores efficiencies, is indifferent about effects on consumers, incorporates few procedural safeguards, is lukewarm on cost-benefit analysis, and risks subverting well-established competition-law principles.” One of the co-authors of this assessment, Lazar Radic(opens in new window) , a Senior Scholar at ICLE, warned that the DCB “risked stifling innovation and overregulating a still-developing digital economy”. These comments appeared independent, but did not disclose that ICLE receives funding from Amazon(opens in new window) and Meta(opens in new window) .

This web of think-tanks, consultancies, and policy events allowed Big Tech to dominate the narrative, recasting regulation designed to control their monopoly power as anti-innovation and a threat to India’s digital – and, by extension, economic – future.

As the researcher put it: “Big Tech never admits that their opposition is about protecting their own profits. They never say the DCB would affect their business. Instead, they claim that consumers and users will be harmed.

The way they twist the narrative feels like gaslighting.”

The intensive lobbying worked. In August 2025, the government(opens in new window) withdrew the bill. Media reporting(opens in new window) and government statements made clear this was a direct response to the concerns of US Big Tech and national corporate giants.

Playing the Trump card

For Big Tech, pausing the Bill was not enough. While it was lobbying the Indian government and arguing that the Bill would impact the country’s economy, three trade associations(opens in new window) funded by Big Tech companies reportedly asked the Trump administration to treat the DCB proposal as a regulatory tariff (see the US case).

It is not clear what will happen with the proposal. When the government announced the withdrawal, it promised to conduct a market study and then refine the draft. Two other Indian laws, the Digital Services Tax(opens in new window) and e-commerce(opens in new window) regulations, have already been sacrificed(opens in new window) to avoid tariff retaliation from the Trump administration.

Big Tech vs one of the world’s largest economies (spoiler: Big Tech wins)

The Digital Competition Bill exposes three central pillars of Big Tech’s global lobby playbook: first, frame the narrative about a country’s economic future; then use a network of industry associations, consultancies, and think-tanks to amplify it. Finally, make good use of the latest tool it has acquired: its alliance with the Trump administration.

India is a massive and critical market for Big Tech and one that has tried to protect itself from their excessive power and influence. Yet, even here, US Big Tech firms have been able to deploy their lobby playbook to stall – and possibly kill off – new regulation.