Competition Law and Digital Trade Infrastructure Competition Issues

1. Meaning

Digital trade infrastructure means the technological systems through which digital commerce is enabled, such as:

Digital payment systems

App stores

Cloud infrastructure

Online marketplaces

Search and discovery systems

Digital advertising exchanges

Digital identity and authentication

Data-interoperability systems

APIs and technical standards

Logistics and fulfilment platforms

Cross-border e-commerce infrastructure

Competition problems arise when control over an essential digital infrastructure gives a firm the ability to exclude rivals, discriminate between users, raise rivals' costs, restrict interoperability, or extend market power into neighbouring markets.

2. Basic Competition-Law Framework

Use this sequence:

INFRASTRUCTURE → MARKET POWER → CONDUCT → FORECLOSURE → COMPETITIVE EFFECT → REMEDY

The central question is not simply whether a company is large.

The important questions are:

What is the relevant market?

Does the firm possess substantial market power?

Is the infrastructure an important input or gateway?

What conduct is being undertaken?

Are competitors being excluded or disadvantaged?

Are consumers, merchants or innovation being harmed?

What remedy can restore competitive access?

3. Major Digital Trade Infrastructure Competition Issues

A. Gatekeeper Power

A digital infrastructure operator can become a gatekeeper between businesses and consumers.

Examples:

App store → developer → consumer

Payment network → merchant → consumer

Search engine → business → customer

Marketplace → seller → buyer

The gatekeeper can potentially influence:

access,

ranking,

fees,

visibility,

technical standards,

data access,

interoperability.

B. Self-Preferencing

A platform may give its own downstream service preferential treatment over competing services.

Example

A marketplace operates both:

the marketplace infrastructure; and

its own retail business.

If its algorithm systematically gives its own products better placement, competition concerns can arise.

The EU's Digital Markets Act specifically addresses self-preferencing by designated gatekeepers, and the European Commission announced in July 2026 findings against Google concerning preferential treatment of its own services in Search. (Digital Strategy EU)

Memory word:

Platform + Own Product + Preferential Treatment = Self-Preferencing Issue

4. Access Discrimination

An infrastructure provider may give competitors:

slower access,

inferior technical functionality,

higher fees,

less favourable contractual terms,

restricted APIs,

limited data access.

This becomes particularly important where the infrastructure is difficult to replicate.

5. Interoperability Restrictions

Interoperability means different systems can communicate and work with each other.

Competition concerns arise when a dominant infrastructure provider deliberately prevents:

System A ↔ System B

from functioning effectively.

Examples include:

payment interoperability,

messaging interoperability,

data portability,

cloud interoperability,

app compatibility,

API access.

The EU Android litigation illustrates how contractual restrictions and anti-fragmentation measures can be examined for exclusionary effects in a digital ecosystem. (Eur-Lex)

6. Network Effects

Digital infrastructure often has network effects.

More users → more merchants → more users → more data → better service → more users.

This can create a reinforcing cycle.

A successful platform can therefore become difficult for competitors to challenge even where the underlying technology is theoretically replicable.

Competition concern

Network effects + switching costs + data advantages + ecosystem control

may create substantial entry barriers.

7. Data as a Competitive Resource

Digital infrastructure produces enormous quantities of:

consumer data,

transaction data,

search data,

merchant data,

behavioural data,

pricing information.

Competition concerns may arise where a dominant infrastructure provider:

collects data from business users;

uses that data to compete against those businesses;

restricts competitors' access to equivalent information.

This can produce a data advantage that reinforces market power.

8. Digital Payments

Payment infrastructure is especially important because merchants need reliable access to payment systems.

Potential competition issues include:

excessive interchange or platform fees,

exclusion of competing payment providers,

discriminatory access,

tying payment services to other products,

restrictions on alternative payment methods,

refusal to provide technical access,

preferential treatment of affiliated payment services.

Competition formula

Payment infrastructure + market power + exclusionary access conditions = potential competition problem

9. App Stores

App stores can simultaneously control:

distribution,

payment systems,

app review,

ranking,

consumer access,

technical rules.

This creates a multi-sided platform.

The platform may therefore act simultaneously as:

Infrastructure operator + regulator + competitor

That combination creates significant competition-law questions.

The European Commission has specifically investigated app-store steering and whether developers can direct consumers to alternative purchasing channels. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

10. Digital Advertising Infrastructure

The advertising ecosystem contains interconnected infrastructure:

Advertiser → DSP → Ad Exchange → Publisher Ad Server → Consumer

Control over several layers can create the ability to influence auctions and exclude rival ad-tech providers.

United States v Google

In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Google liable for monopolization in important open-web digital advertising technology markets. The DOJ's case concerned Google's control over multiple components of the ad-tech stack. (Justice.gov)

In September 2026, the court ordered remedies including interoperability with Prebid, data-sharing requirements and restrictions on preferential bidding. (Justice.gov)

Competition lesson:

Control of infrastructure layers can become leverage over adjacent markets.

11. Cloud Infrastructure

Cloud services increasingly operate as underlying infrastructure for digital trade.

Competition issues can include:

switching costs,

data portability,

interoperability,

contractual restrictions,

technical lock-in,

tying,

preferential treatment of affiliated services,

restrictions on multi-cloud arrangements.

The key concern is:

Can a customer realistically move from one infrastructure provider to another?

If switching is technically or economically difficult, infrastructure control may reinforce market power.

12. Digital Marketplaces

Marketplace infrastructure can create a conflict of interest where the operator is both:

Platform + Seller

Potential concerns include:

self-preferencing,

use of seller data,

ranking manipulation,

discriminatory commissions,

exclusion of rival sellers,

parity clauses,

restrictions on alternative platforms.

The EU's e-commerce sector inquiry identified concerns involving selective distribution, marketplace restrictions, price-comparison restrictions and exclusion of online players. (Competition Policy)

13. Exclusive Dealing

A dominant digital infrastructure provider may require users or business partners to use its infrastructure exclusively.

Examples:

exclusive payment processing,

exclusive app distribution,

exclusive advertising tools,

exclusive cloud arrangements.

Such arrangements may make it difficult for rivals to achieve sufficient scale.

14. Tying and Bundling

A firm may condition access to one infrastructure service on purchasing another service.

Example

Dominant operating system → mandatory search service

or

Marketplace access → mandatory payment service

The legal question is whether the arrangement unlawfully leverages dominance from one market into another.

15. Merger and Acquisition Risks

Digital infrastructure markets can be affected by acquisitions of:

potential competitors,

data-rich companies,

payment platforms,

cloud businesses,

API providers,

cybersecurity providers,

logistics platforms.

A small company may have relatively little current revenue but possess strategically important:

technology,

data,

users,

intellectual property,

network effects.

Therefore, traditional turnover-based merger analysis can sometimes miss competitive risks.

16. Algorithmic Competition

Algorithms can influence:

prices,

rankings,

search results,

advertising auctions,

product visibility,

consumer recommendations.

Competition concerns include:

algorithmic self-preferencing,

discriminatory ranking,

automated exclusion,

coordinated pricing,

manipulation of auctions.

The existence of an algorithm alone does not establish an infringement; the legal analysis focuses on conduct, market power, effects and applicable law.

17. Essential-Facility-Type Problems

A difficult competition question is whether a digital infrastructure provider should be required to give competitors access.

Relevant factors can include:

Importance of the infrastructure;

Availability of alternatives;

Replicability;

Technical feasibility;

Economic feasibility;

Market foreclosure;

Legitimate business justification.

This creates a balance between:

Open access ↔ innovation incentives

18. Six+ Important Case Laws

1. Google Android — Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission

Case C-738/22 P, EU Court of Justice, 2026

The case concerns Google's Android ecosystem, including search, operating systems, app stores, contractual restrictions, tying, exclusive pre-installation payments and anti-fragmentation measures. The CJEU's 2026 judgment examined the competitive significance of these arrangements and their exclusionary effects. (Eur-Lex)

Principle:
Digital ecosystem + contractual restrictions + exclusionary effects

2. Google Android — General Court, T-604/18

Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. v European Commission, 2022

The General Court examined Google's Android ecosystem, including:

Google Search,

Chrome,

Play Store,

device manufacturers,

mobile-network operators,

product bundling,

exclusivity payments,

anti-fragmentation obligations.

(Eur-Lex)

Principle:
Control of an ecosystem can create competition concerns across interconnected digital markets.

3. United States v Google LLC — Digital Advertising

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2025

The court found Google had monopolized important digital advertising technology markets. The litigation concerned the ad-tech stack used by publishers and advertisers. (Justice.gov)

The DOJ alleged conduct involving Google's publisher ad server, ad exchange and advertiser-side tools, including tying and auction-related practices. (Justice.gov)

Principle:

Infrastructure control + tying/exclusionary conduct + monopoly power = antitrust liability

4. United States v Google LLC — Ad-Tech Remedies, 2026

The September 2026 remedy order requires significant interoperability and data-access measures, including integration with Prebid and access/export of certain publisher data. (Justice.gov)

Principle:

Competition remedy can require interoperability and data portability where necessary to reopen infrastructure markets.

5. Google Shopping — Google and Alphabet v European Commission

The Google Shopping litigation concerns preferential positioning and display of Google's own comparison-shopping service relative to competing comparison-shopping services.

Principle:

Dominant search infrastructure + preferential treatment of own downstream service = self-preferencing competition issue.

This principle is particularly relevant to modern digital trade infrastructure because search infrastructure functions as a gateway to online commerce.

6. Apple App Store / Digital Markets Act Proceedings

The European Commission opened proceedings concerning Apple's and Google's app-store compliance, including restrictions affecting developers' ability to steer consumers toward alternative purchasing channels. (Digital Markets Act (DMA))

Principle:

App-store infrastructure + payment control + steering restrictions = potential competition concern.

7. Amazon Marketplace Competition Issues

Amazon-related competition litigation and regulatory investigations have examined the relationship between the marketplace operator and third-party sellers, including concerns surrounding the use of seller information and the platform's role as a competitor.

Principle:

Marketplace operator + seller data + downstream competition = potential conflict of interest

8. EU E-Commerce Competition Inquiry

The European Commission's e-commerce sector inquiry identified competition concerns around:

selective distribution,

pricing restrictions,

marketplace bans,

price-comparison restrictions,

exclusion of pure online players.

(Competition Policy)

Principle:

Digital distribution rules can alter market access and therefore require competition analysis.

19. Infrastructure Competition Matrix

20. Key Legal Tests

Dominance

Market share + barriers + network effects + switching costs + countervailing power

Abuse

Dominance + exclusionary/exploitative conduct + competitive harm

Infrastructure access

Importance + lack of alternatives + non-replicability + foreclosure

Digital merger

Existing competition + potential competition + data + network effects + ecosystem leverage

Consumer impact

Price + quality + choice + innovation + privacy + access

21. Main Competition Remedies

Competition authorities may consider:

Fines

Prohibition of exclusionary conduct

Non-discrimination obligations

Interoperability

Data portability

API access

Separation of functions

Prohibition of tying

Restrictions on self-preferencing

Behavioural remedies

Structural remedies where legally appropriate

Merger conditions

The Google ad-tech remedy illustrates the increasing importance of interoperability and data access as competition remedies in infrastructure markets. (Justice.gov)

22. Ultra-Short Revision List

Remember:

GATEKEEPER
DOMINANCE
SELF-PREFERENCING
TYING
BUNDLING
EXCLUSIVITY
DATA ADVANTAGE
INTEROPERABILITY
ACCESS
NETWORK EFFECTS
SWITCHING COSTS
PLATFORM CONFLICT
ALGORITHM
CLOUD LOCK-IN
PAYMENT CONTROL
APP-STORE CONTROL
AD-TECH CONTROL
MERGER CONTROL

Final Formula

DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE → GATEKEEPER POWER → ACCESS CONTROL → SELF-PREFERENCING/TYING/EXCLUSION → RIVAL FORECLOSURE → LESS CHOICE/INNOVATION → COMPETITION-LAW REMEDY

Exam conclusion: Digital trade infrastructure has shifted competition law from analysing only traditional products and prices toward analysing gateways, ecosystems, data, interoperability, algorithms, network effects and access conditions. The central legal challenge is to preserve contestability of infrastructure while avoiding remedies that unnecessarily reduce incentives to innovate.