Platform Power and Digital Regulation: Global Lessons, Local Realities - Esin Aygun

The following featured speech by Esin Aygun of the Turkish Competition Authority was delivered during our Next-Generation Regulation: Competition Law in the Digital, Intelligent, and Sustainable Economy conference in Istanbul, Turkiye, on November 7, 2025.

The global economy has been experiencing a significant shift away from purely offline operations due to the emergence and extension of the digital economy in the last decades. This technical change has also affected global regulatory paradigms.

While “digital revolution” is changing our behaviours with increasing momentum, diversifying our options, and making our lives easier, it also brings costs and raises concerns across many policy areas. Digital platforms are nowadays among the most prevalent organizations at the global scale. While they play a decisive role in creating value to stakeholders in the digital platform economy, they have accumulated significant market power.[1]

If elaborated further, this market power marks a turning point in the organization of markets and transactions, industry and value chains, and even social interactions. The digital platforms’ dominance in many areas of the economic and social life has made platform economy a critical area of academic and policy study. As such, online platforms are accepted as one of the three key digital enablers of the global economy that have risen to the top of policy agendas.[2]

In the last five years, it has been a matter of intense debate whether the competition rules applied to digital platforms are sufficient or not, and what kind of regulation should be made if new rules are needed. Several nations have strengthened their competition law regimes or introduced new legislation specifically aimed at digital platforms. In addition, they are employing soft-law instruments such as guidelines, market studies, and analysis, alongside robust legal enforcement. Even more notably, the world’s leading competition authorities started to implement ex-ante regulations with the aim of establishing effective competition.[3] However, these regulatory experiments differ markedly in their design and philosophy. The regulation of digital markets follows a different direction than competition law rules. While similar competition rules often apply across sectors, different regulatory frameworks are governing digital markets of similar structure. Some jurisdictions rely on hard rules while others prefer flexible standards.[4] As of now, there is currently no global consensus on the most efficient regulatory techniques or frameworks to address the competition challenges arising from digital markets. What makes this debate even more complex is that regulating platform power is not just a technical or legal issue; it is a question of how we envision fair and open digital markets in a globalized world.     

The Nature of Platform Power

Certain digital platforms have been able to acquire significant market positions and preserve them over time. Many of the most innovative internet-derived digital markets, such as search engines, social networks, network operating systems, ecommerce, and ride-sharing, are highly concentrated and have been dominated by one or a few firms for a number of years. Network effects, economies of scale and scope, and near-zero marginal and distribution costs allow them to grow rapidly and operate globally. Data-driven advantages and self-reinforcing feedback loops make markets naturally tend toward concentration. On top of that, platform design and ranking choices influence consumer behavior, further reinforcing their dominance.[5] Finally, digital platform operators may stiffen their market power with other activities.

Traditional competition tools, struggle to capture these new dynamics. This is primarily due to challenges in defining relevant markets, identifying the nature and extent of market power, determining the conduct that constitutes an infringement, and ultimately devising effective remedies. Recognizing this, competition authorities are looking for additional tools to tackle that market power effectively and adopting rules that complement existing competition frameworks.[6]

Global Regulatory Lessons

Across the world, jurisdictions have taken distinct paths to address platform power, and there is much to learn from their experiences. The ex-ante regulations adopted in advanced jurisdictions share some features as the companies are dealt with global common goals, but they adopt different approaches, involve different enforcement bodies and types of compliance instruments. We therefore observe clear differences in their scope, design and enforcement.[7]

The European Union has taken the lead with the Digital Markets Act - a rules-based and ex-ante framework. The DMA relies on rules as it imposes a closed list of obligations and prohibitions which aim to be self-enforcing. It has begun its full implementation, with gatekeepers appointed, compliance obligations in place, and sanctions being implemented where necessary. While it may still be early to assess its long-term effectiveness, early implementation shows that the European Commission has engaged in sustained regulatory dialogue with designated gatekeepers, monitoring compliance closely and encouraging improvements based on third-party feedback.[8] Thus, while the DMA relies on self-implemented rules, it incorporates a subtle participatory element in enforcement.

The United Kingdom has chosen a different route through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which entered into force in January this year. In line with its principles-based philosophy, it establishes a framework that is flexible and forward-looking, reflecting the dynamic nature of the digital economy and providing for intervention in a bespoke and targeted way.  It gives the CMA discretion to determine which firms should be regulated, and how the rules should apply. The CMA released its first SMS designations during October, marking the beginning of a new era in UK digital regulation.[9] The true test will be how these designations translate into effective and proportionate interventions.

In addition, when we finally come to Germany, it offers a hybrid model through Section 19a, empowering the Bundeskartellamt to act ex ante against firms of “paramount significance for competition across markets.” The 19a tool is a true novelty in the toolkit of German competition law and it sits between traditional competition law and sector regulation.[10] The German example serves as a guide for countries that want to adapt existing competition law rules to the needs of digital markets. This mechanism has already led to landmark cases and tangible changes in business conduct.

It is not an exaggeration to say that, all of these three models differ in the design of the regulatory frameworks. Each of these systems reflects a different balance between flexibility, certainty, and administrative speed.[11]These differences create variation in the effectiveness of the frameworks, the accuracy of the proposed interventions and rules, and the burdens on regulators and undertakings.[12] The EU framework offers predictability through clear rules; the UK model emphasizes adaptability and engagement; Germany’s approach seeks to bridge both worlds, being evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Despite their differences, all share a common purpose: to ensure fair and competitive digital markets by targeting a limited number of powerful platforms.[13]

Looking at these models, we can also say that engagement between regulators and platforms is key for tackling complex, rapidly evolving digital issues. We experience a paradigm shift from ‘regulate and forget’ to ‘adapt and learn’. And to foster competition and innovation in digital markets, faster, more flexible, and tailored solutions are needed.[14]

But these three models represent only some part of the global landscape. Beyond Europe, governments have pursued different approaches. The US’s litigation-driven antitrust cases, and Asia and Latin America’s varied approaches to competition and data related issues are also important elements of global trends. Each experiment reflects distinct institutional realities, but all speak to a growing recognition that digital markets demand new regulatory frameworks.

When we look at various policy, statutory, and enforcement measures adopted by key jurisdictions across the globe, we see that recent developments again illustrate diversity. The Brazilian government introduced the Digital Fair Competition Bill in Congress last month aimed at reforming the country’s competition law and establishing an ex-ante regulatory framework for digital markets. Brazil’s proposed amendment to its competition law represents a decisive step in aligning its regulatory framework with global trends in digital markets while preserving its own institutional and economic specificities.[15] Japan’s digital market is currently regulated under the Antimonopoly Act. Additionally, the Act on Improving Transparency and Fairness of Digital Platforms imposes transparency and fairness obligations on certain platform operators. And the Act on Promotion of Competition for Specified Smartphone Software is applied to operators belonging to specific business categories and providing certain types of software.[16] In Australia, the government is proposing a new digital competition regime for digital platforms to promote effective competition and unlock innovation, lower prices and better services for the benefit of Australian consumers and businesses.[17] The report, which concludes the ACCC’s five year inquiry, has reiterated support for measures including an economy wide unfair trading practices prohibition, an external dispute resolution body for digital platform services, and a new digital competition regime.[18]

India, China, and Türkiye also illustrate that there is no single model for regulating platforms, only models that reflect institutional capacities, market structures, and local priorities. While China studies foreign regulatory models, it does not seek to adopt them directly, preferring instead to base its approach on its own national realities. They keep updating their rules, including 2022 amendments, to keep up with the time according to China's realities.[19]India has already witnessed a growing number of competition law cases over digital platforms and Digital Competition Bill was proposed that introduced ex-ante regulation for digital platforms. In August 2025, it has been withdrawn. The decision to withdraw was based on ensuring that any future Bill balances innovation and competition and reflects India’s unique digital economy structure. It has been discussed that while proactive digital competition tools were important, a calibrated, evidence-based, and India-specific approach was needed, drawing lessons from DMA’s shortcomings.[20]

Finally, Türkiye is one of the countries that enforces competition law on digital platforms effectively. Turkish Competition Authority has carried out a study examining the characteristics of digital markets alongside the need for policy changes, named ‘The Impact of Digital Transformation on Competition Law’.[21]  Although no legislative progress has been yet made, in October 2022, the Draft Amendment to Competition Law was shared with stakeholders. Drawing on competition law cases and comprehensive market analyses carried out in Türkiye, a draft regulation has been prepared to reflect the structure and dynamics of Türkiye’s digital markets in a manner similar to Section 19a of the German Competition Act.

Together, these snapshots show a wide spectrum, from enforcement-first to ex-ante rules, each still evolving. Countries are addressing similar challenges but tailoring their responses to local conditions, institutional capacity, and political priorities. So, translating global lessons into local contexts is where theory meets reality. Policymakers must navigate different kind of tensions. For instance, the question of how to prevent harm without discouraging growth should be asked. Also, the tension between global platforms and local authorities should be dealt. Looking at how national regulators can assert meaningful oversight in markets increasingly shaped by global companies’ power will be crucial. Finally, matching bold policy goals with administrative expertise and capacity should be considered. With that regard, legal tradition, level of experience and culture, institutional and technical capabilities of the regulator have a decisive role for shaping the policies that fit with local needs. While policymakers are eager to strengthen enforcement tools in response to the market power of major technology companies, the structural ambition must be matched by administrative capacity. There is no one-size-fits-all solution appropriate for all jurisdictions.

Looking Ahead; A Global but Contextual Future

We can say that digital regulation cannot be fully globalized and there is no universal solution to competition problems in digital world because digital realities are not uniform. Regulation must therefore be globally informed but locally grounded. From that perspective, the global dialogue is gaining more and more importance. Cross-border cooperation -through OECD, UNCTAD, or regional networks- will be essential to prevent regulatory fragmentation. Looking at the regulations that come into force and understanding the regulatory philosophy behind them may help to choose local models wisely.

The classic distinction between rules and standards helps frame the debate: rules provide predictability, while standards allow flexibility.[22] The most effective digital regulation may combine the two; clear rules guided by adaptive, participative standards.

As we move forward, participative and hybrid regulatory models are likely to best serve fast-evolving digital markets, where agility and cooperation are as important as enforcement.

To conclude…

There is growing international consensus that competition in the digital economy is key to fostering innovation and strong, sustainable and inclusive growth. We are learning that digital markets do not regulate themselves; they require rules, standards, and institutions capable of evolving as fast as technology does. Global lessons provide inspiration, but local realities give those lessons meaning.

So, if we can align global experience with local insight; clarity with flexibility, enforcement with innovation; we can move toward a digital future that is not only competitive, but also fair and inclusive. Coordinated approaches not only strengthen the effectiveness of domestic interventions but also give regulators collective leverage in addressing global platforms’ conduct.

The coming decade will test our ability to build digital governance that matches the speed of innovation and our commitment to ensuring that technology serves competition, fairness, and society as a whole.