ATTENTION, DATA OR MONEY? RE-IMAGINING THE ‘PRICE’ IN SSNIP TESTS FOR ZERO-PRICE DIGITAL SERVICES
AUTHOR – SAURAV DWIVEDI,STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
BEST CITATION – SAURAV DWIVEDI, ATTENTION, DATA OR MONEY? RE-IMAGINING THE ‘PRICE’ IN SSNIP TESTS FOR ZERO-PRICE DIGITAL SERVICES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 830-825, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
Introduction
Traditional competition law tools like the Small but Significant Non-transitory Increase in Price (‘SSNIP’) test underpin market definition by assessing whether a hypothetical monopolist could profitably raise prices by 5-10% without significant loss of sales to substitutes.[1] Yet this framework falters in zero-price digital services, where platforms such as Google Search, Meta’s social networks, and TikTok offer gratis access funded by advertising revenue and user data monetisation, rendering monetary price increases conceptually inapplicable.[2] Users effectively “pay” through data surrender, attention allocation to ads, or privacy erosion, exposing SSNIP’s limitations in capturing non-pecuniary trade-offs that drive dominance and harm consumer welfare.[3]
This essay argues that “price” in SSNIP-type tests must evolve into a multi-dimensional construct incorporating monetary outlay, data volume/sensitivity, quality, and attention costs to accurately delineate markets and detect abuse in digital ecosystems. It first elucidates the SSNIP test’s mechanics and its role in market definition under EU, US, and Indian regimes. The analysis then dissects zero-price market challenges, critiques existing adaptations like SSNDQ and data-as-currency models, and proposes a hybrid SSNAIP framework. Comparative perspectives across jurisdictions follow, alongside policy recommendations, concluding with calls for empirical refinement and inter-regime coordination.
[1] Commission Notice on the Definition of Relevant Market for the Purposes of Community Competition Law OJ C372/5, paras 17–22.
[2] OECD, ‘Rethinking Antitrust Tools for Multi-Sided Platforms’ (2017) 45.
[3] Press Information Bureau, ‘CCI imposes a monetary penalty of Rs. 1337.76 crore on Google for anti-competitive practices in Android mobile devices ecosystem’ (PIB, 20 October 2022) https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1869748®=3&lang=2 accessed 11 December 2025.