Published on: 25th December 2025
AUTHORED BY: SHUBHAM TANDON
(Maharshi Dayanand University) - Rohtak
Abstract
The growth of leading worldwide tech companies has created different levels of influence that go beyond the usual conventional borders. The event has been called “digital colonialism”. This reality demonstrates how the small number of technology giants has the power to shape the economic, political, and cultural sides of the borders in a very dominant way. Unlike traditional colonialism which was based on geographical conquest, digital colonialism is carried out by data harvesting, algorithmic governance, and dominating the infrastructure.
The article points to the impact on the sovereignty of states beyond the territories of tech companies, thus identifying a conflict between private digital empires and public international law. It shows the changes in the laws of jurisdiction, data localization, and digital trade resulting from the dominance of companies like Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple. This paper, to bring back the equilibrium of innovation and sovereignty, states that the extracellular reach of these uncontrolled and unregulated companies severely limits the autonomy of states, particularly in the Global South, thus there is a need for a reconsideration of international legal frameworks.
Keywords
Digital Colonialism , Extraterritoriality , State Sovereignty, Data Governance, Technology Giants, International Law , Jurisdiction, Global South , Digital Trade , Human Rights.
Introduction
One of the twenty-first-century phenomena is the rise of technology companies as a new kind of global power whose influence goes beyond the borders of any country. Scholars argue that corporations such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and others , not only play the game economically, but they also intervene in the political discourse, manipulate cultural narratives, and, in fact, become the agents of law enforcement , sometimes acting as quasi-regulatory entities. The term digital colonialism is lately most often used by scholars to describe this situation. It refers to the dominating tech firms-tech state relations, notably with the Southern hemisphere.
However, digital colonialism is different from the traditional one in that it is not through physical/data theft and territorial control that digital colonialism occurs but through the exploitation of data, infrastructural services, and algorithmic ruling. The legal side of these changes is very serious: It opens a Pandora’s box of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and accountability questions which are the foundations of law beyond the limits of states and thus international law.
This paper is about the influence of technology giants beyond the borders on the sovereignty of states. Firstly, it articulates digital colonialism and relates it to past and current legal issues. Afterward, it examines the avenues through which tech firms command extraterritorial power, such as establishing data monopolies, control of platforms, and agreements on digital trade. In the end, it reviews the reactions of the states and international institutions, and accordingly, maps the routes of corporate power and sovereign authority balance reestablishment.
Conceptualizing Digital Colonialism
A. From Classical Colonialism to Digital Empire
Colonialism, as a historical concept, centered on the domination of less powerful states by more powerful ones through the seizure of territories, the exploitation of resources, and the imposition of one’s culture. The methods of domination have changed in the digital age. The commodity being fought over is not land but data; the weapons are not armies but algorithms and platforms. Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias in their book “The Cost of Connections” define digital colonialism as “the extraction of data from human life for profit and control.” Their definition emphasizes the link between classical colonialism and current digital practices: both have dominance as a core theme, they also exploit resources and disempower the local communities.
B. Sovereignty in the Digital Age
Sovereignty, which is generally recognized as the ultimate power of a state over its territory, is currently being questioned by the borderless nature of digital technologies.² For example, if a company based in the U.S. such as Meta, is implementing content moderation policies in India, or if Google’s search algorithms are influencing political discourse in Kenya, the sovereignty of those countries is being limited to some extent.
International law has been struggling with the issue of extraterritoriality for a long time, especially in the areas of antitrust, human rights, and environmental regulation.³ Nevertheless, the extent and the pace of digital extraterritoriality are creating challenges that have never been encountered before.
II. Mechanisms of Extraterritorial Impact
A. Data Extraction and Monopolization
Data is frequently called the “new oil” technology companies.⁴ They extract massive amounts of personal and behavioral data from users all over the world, most of the time without providing proper consent. After that, the data is processed, monetized, and used to direct consumer behavior and political discourse.
As a matter of fact, Facebook’s involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a clear example of how data collected from users in one area could be used as a “weapon” to change elections in another.⁵ These kinds of operations, thus, weaken the capacity of states to control their own democratic processes.
B. Platform Governance and Algorithmic Power
Social media platforms such as Twitter (now X), YouTube, and TikTok are considered to be the modern public squares. However, the regulations about speech on these platforms are not established by democratic institutions but by corporate policies.⁶
In a situation where Twitter suspends a political leader’s account, or when YouTube decides not to monetize certain content, these actions cause effects beyond the borders of the countries where they took place. In fact, they influence political discourse, cultural narratives, and the implementation of human rights norms.⁷
C. Digital Infrastructure and Dependency
A significant number of states, mostly in the Global South, depend on infrastructure that is controlled by foreign corporates i.e. cloud services, undersea cables, and app ecosystems.⁸ Such a dependency situation certainly exposes them to risks- these states may even feel that they are powerless to impose domestic regulations or to safeguard national security without the assistance of foreign companies.
D. Trade Agreements and Regulatory Capture
One of the features of digital trade agreements, for instance, those pushed by the U.S. in the WTO and regional trade blocs, is the inclusion of provisions that prohibit data localization and decrease the capacity of states to regulate tech firms.⁹ In effect, these accords consolidate the power of tech giants to the detriment of the regulatory freedom of the states.
III. Legal Challenges to State Sovereignty
A. Jurisdictional Conflicts
At the root of the problem is the principle of territorial jurisdiction, which does not fit well with the technologically borderless world of digital technologies. Courts have had difficulties in deciding the situations in which states have the right to impose regulations on corporations in foreign countries and the manner of such imposition.
For example, in the Supreme Court of Canada in Google v. Equustek , The court decided in favor of a global injunction that required Google to remove the links to certain websites, thereby questioning the long arm reach of local courts.
B. Data Localization and Sovereignty
As an attempt to counter digital colonialism, various countries have implemented data localization regulations that demand data resulting from their region to be stored domestically. Such regulations intend to defend sovereignty , however, they also provoke worries about internet division and the emergence of trade obstacles.
India’s draft Personal Data Protection Bill is a case in point that imparts a requirement for local storage of sensitive personal data, thus, demonstrating the conflict between sovereignty and global trade.
C. Human Rights and Corporate Accountability
Technology companies are becoming the main representatives of human rights, especially in the areas of freedom of speech and privacy. However, international human rights law mainly targets states, not corporations. Although The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights offer a framework but nevertheless, the enforcement of it is still very limited.
IV. Responses and Pathways Forward
- Strengthening International Legal Frameworks: It is widely agreed that international law must change in order to properly regulate digital colonialism. Some of the ideas put forward are a binding international treaty on data governance, more vigorous antitrust enforcement, and the establishment of corporate accountability mechanisms.
- Regional and National Strategies: Whereas the European Union and other regional bodies have been very active in putting the brakes on technology corporations through the enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and Digital Markets Act, the EU is attempting to regain control of the digital world sphere.¹⁷ The rest of the countries, especially those in the Global South, are still in the process of coming up with digital industrial policies that would help them create local platforms as opposed to being dependent on foreign ones.¹⁸
- Reimagining Sovereignty: In fact, the idea of sovereignty with regard to the digital era might have to be fundamentally altered. Instead of trying to maintain territorial exclusivity, governments might have to accept networked sovereignty whereby power is shared beyond borders by means of joint frameworks.¹⁹
Conclusion
Digital colonialism is a major challenge of the 21st century in a lot of ways. The influence beyond borders of big tech companies weakens the power of the states, alters democratic processes, and deepen global inequalities. Even though countries and international organizations are starting to react, there is still a lot of work left to be done.
It is very necessary to change the international law to bring back the equilibrium between the power of the corporations and the authority of the sovereign. If such reforms are not carried out, the digital age will be guilty of the same injustices as the colonial era but in a more subtle way.
References
- Nick Couldry & Ulises A. Mejias, The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism (2019).
- Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 489–92 (8th ed. 2017).
- Cedric Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law 12–15 (2d ed. 2015).
- Viktor Mayer-Schönberger & Thomas Ramge, Reinventing Capitalism in the Age of Big Data 45 (2018).
- Carole Cadwalladr & Emma Graham-Harrison, Revealed: 50 Million Facebook Profiles Harvested for Cambridge Analytica, The Guardian (Mar. 17, 2018).
- Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media 22–25 (2018).
- Evelyn Douek, The Rise of Content Cartels, 134 Harv. L. Rev. 2025 (2021).
- Laura DeNardis, The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch
