Traditional internet-shutdown litigation usually focuses on constitutional rights, freedom of expression, access to information and administrative legality. The 2024 internet shutdown in Bangladesh can be analysed through the framework of competition law, particularly under the Essential Facilities Doctrine (EFD). EFD is a principle of competition law developed to prevent a dominant controller of indispensable infrastructure from excluding market participants. Access to internet infrastructure enables businesses to communicate with customers, process transactions, deliver services, access digital platforms, and participate in domestic and international markets. For many enterprises, particularly SMEs, startups, freelancers, and digital exporters, uninterrupted connectivity is indispensable to commercial activity.
The economic impact of the 2024 shutdown illustrates the significance of this issue. According to a July 28, 2024 report, the shutdown caused an estimated economic loss exceeding US$10 billion. The Foreign Investors’ Chamber of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) further reported that operational disruptions, delays in goods release, and widespread business inefficiencies increased costs and generated uncertainty among investors. The resulting effect may amount to a form of market foreclosure because access to an essential input necessary for market participation has been denied. For many businesses, the practical consequence was temporary exclusion from the market itself. Economic activity dependent upon digital connectivity could not be conducted, regardless of the willingness or capability of firms to compete.
The 2024 Internet Shutdown During July–August 2024 under mentioned services has been suspended. Mobile internet services were suspended, broadband services were disrupted, online communication systems became unavailable, digital transactions were interrupted, e-commerce operations were halted, freelancers lost access to international clients, and fintech and digital-payment services experienced disruptions etc. Reports from business organisations, international media, and civil-society groups indicate significant economic consequences across multiple sectors. Internet connectivity now functions as an essential economic facility. Businesses across virtually every sector including exporters, financial service providers, e-commerce platforms, freelancers, technology firms, and digital entrepreneurs depend on continuous internet access to compete and operate effectively.
This article focuses on the economic and competitive consequences of restricting access to digital infrastructure that has become indispensable for participation in modern markets. When access to such a facility is suspended nationwide, the consequences extend beyond a mere communications disruption. A prolonged shutdown may result in large-scale market exclusion, preventing businesses and consumers from accessing markets, conducting transactions, fulfilling contractual obligations, and engaging in economic activity.
The internet has evolved into a form of essential economic infrastructure. Where market participation depends upon continuous internet access, a complete shutdown may amount to a denial of access to an essential facility. Modern digital commerce cannot operate without connectivity. Businesses increasingly depend on broadband networks, mobile internet, cloud services, digital communication platforms.
The Essential Facilities Doctrine (EFD) requires a monopolist or dominant enterprise controlling an essential facility to provide access to competitors on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms when denial of access would substantially harm competition. The doctrine generally requires proof of control of an essential facility, inability of competitors or users to duplicate the facility, denial or restriction of access, and feasibility of providing access. Increasingly, economic activity depends on digital networks. Without internet access, businesses may be unable to: communicate with customers, process payments, deliver services, access cloud infrastructure, participate in online markets. The internet therefore resembles other network industries historically treated as essential infrastructure.
Internet shutdown 2024 created a market foreclosure. A market foreclosure occurs when access to customers, inputs, or distribution channels is restricted in a way that prevents effective participation in a market. Accordingly, the internet shutdown may be examined as a potential case of functional market foreclosure, whereby restriction of access to essential digital infrastructure produced exclusionary effects across multiple sectors of the economy. From a competition-law perspective, the issue is not merely the interruption of communications, but the denial of access to an indispensable facility required for effective participation in modern markets.
The doctrine originated primarily through judicial decisions in the United States and later developed in the European Union. A foundational illustration of this principle is found in United States v. Terminal Railroad Association (United States, 1912). In that case, a group of railroad companies controlled the only practical railway bridges and switching facilities serving the city of St. Louis. Because competing railroads could not reasonably duplicate the infrastructure, denial of access would have effectively excluded them from the market. The U.S. Supreme Court recognised that control over indispensable infrastructure could not be used to foreclose competition or prevent market participation by others. The case established the foundational principle that when a facility functions as an unavoidable economic bottleneck, control over that facility may not be exercised in a manner that excludes competitors or restricts access to the market. The concept of market foreclosure is particularly relevant where access to an essential facility is a prerequisite for economic participation.
Accordingly, the 2024 internet shutdown may be examined as a potential case of functional market foreclosure, whereby restriction of access to essential digital infrastructure produced exclusionary effects across multiple sectors of the economy. From a competition-law perspective, the issue is not merely the interruption of communications, but the denial of access to an indispensable facility required for effective participation in modern markets. Competition law seeks to prevent abuse of market power while encouraging efficient market outcomes. The Essential Facilities Doctrine is closely linked to the concept of abuse of dominance.
Bangladesh’s rapidly growing economy increasingly depends on infrastructure-intensive sectors such as telecommunications, energy, ports, transportation, digital services, and financial technology. The country’s competition framework, particularly under the Competition Act,2012 provides a foundation for addressing abuse of dominance. Authorities may argue that internet shutdowns constitute sovereign or security decisions rather than commercial conduct. Respondents may argue that competition law cannot review executive decisions taken for public-order purposes. When internet connectivity functions as indispensable economic infrastructure, restrictions on access may create market-wide exclusionary effects capable of analysis under competition-law principles, including the Essential Facilities Doctrine.
Any aggrieved party may file a complaint to Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC) for damage compensation of internet shutdown of 2024. If accepted, the matter could become a landmark case defining how competition law interacts with essential digital infrastructure in Bangladesh. BCC may also take up a suo moto case to consider the abuse of dominance position of the regulating authority. Although significant jurisdictional and sovereign-action challenges exist, the issue raises important questions concerning market access, economic harm, digital infrastructure governance, and the future development of competition law in Bangladesh. For these reasons, the matter warrants serious consideration by lawyers, economists, business associations, policymakers, regulators, and other stakeholders before a formal complaint is filed before BCC.
The proceeding may help establish guiding principles for government authorities, regulators, telecom operators, businesses, consumers, and digital entrepreneurs regarding their respective rights, duties, and responsibilities in a digital economy increasingly dependent on uninterrupted connectivity.
The writer is the CEO, Bangla Chemical & Legal Economist. E-mail: [email protected]
