Published on: 05th January 2025
Authored by: Dia Samani
SVKM's NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law
Abstract
Digital colonialism describes the new global power structure where private technology corporations control data and infrastructure that cross national borders. This article analyses how that control challenges sovereignty and tests international law. It compares regulatory responses in the United States, the European Union, and the Global South, and evaluates whether current frameworks can handle the growing power of multinational digital actors.
Introduction
Traditional colonialism relied on land and raw materials. Today, control works through data and technology. Modern dominance is no longer about physical occupation. It is about owning platforms, servers, and algorithms that shape economies and societies.
Companies such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple influence almost every aspect of digital life. They manage global communication networks, store personal information, and decide what information people see online. Their decisions often have legal and political consequences that extend beyond the borders of the countries they operate in.
This growing influence is called digital colonialism. It reflects a shift from state-based power to corporate power, where private actors decide the rules of the digital environment. Scholars such as Shoshana Zuboff link this to surveillance capitalism, the system that turns personal data into economic profit.1 Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias describe data colonialism as the extraction of human life through digital systems.2
The rise of these systems raises a key legal question: can traditional concepts of sovereignty protect states from the extraterritorial reach of global technology companies?
Sovereignty and Extraterritorial Reach
Sovereignty gives a state control over its territory and people. It includes the authority to make and enforce laws. When digital platforms operate across multiple jurisdictions, this control weakens.
International law recognises three basic principles of jurisdiction. First, territorial jurisdiction applies to acts committed within a state. Second, nationality jurisdiction applies to citizens abroad. Third, the effects doctrine allows a state to act when foreign conduct harms its domestic interests.3
These rules work poorly in a digital environment. Data crosses borders instantly. A company may collect user information in one country, process it in another, and store it on servers in a third. No single state holds full authority.
Tech corporations act as rule-makers. They decide what data can be shared, which content is allowed, and how privacy applies to billions of users. Their terms of service create private systems of governance that function outside democratic oversight.
Theoretical Basis
Zuboff’s work on surveillance capitalism explains how corporations use technology to predict and shape behaviour.4 This system profits from continuous data extraction. Couldry and Mejias argue that this process mirrors old forms of colonialism, replacing land and labour with information.5
These theories show how global technology companies exercise a new kind of power. Control no longer depends on territory but on data ownership. When most digital infrastructure and cloud storage belong to companies based in the Global North, countries in the Global South lose autonomy.
This pattern resembles colonial economics, where value flows from poorer regions to richer ones. Developing countries provide data, while advanced economies capture and process it.
- Comparative Legal Perspectives
(i) United States
The United States follows a market-driven approach. Federal privacy protection is fragmented and sector-specific. There is no single national data protection law. The U.S. CLOUD Act 2018 even allows American authorities to access data stored abroad by U.S. companies.6
This regulatory gap helps American corporations dominate the global market. Their platforms operate across borders while remaining largely accountable to domestic standards that prioritise business freedom over user rights.
(ii) European Union
The European Union treats privacy as a legal right. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies not only within the EU but also to any organisation handling data of EU citizens, regardless of location.7
In the Schrems II judgment (2020), the Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the EU–US Privacy Shield framework.8 It ruled that U.S. surveillance laws did not offer adequate protection. The case showed that the EU is willing to extend its legal standards beyond its borders.
The Digital Services Act (2022) and Digital Markets Act (2023) add further control by targeting large online platforms and requiring algorithmic transparency.9 The EU model thus reflects an active effort to reclaim digital sovereignty.
(iii) Global South
The Global South faces dependency on foreign digital infrastructure. Most data from Africa, Asia, and Latin America is processed in the Global North. Local regulation often lacks enforcement capacity.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 represents a major reform. It introduces consent-based processing and controls on data transfers.10 Yet its broad exemptions for government processing weaken individual rights.
Kenya’s Data Protection Act 2019 similarly creates rights for individuals but struggles with limited institutional capacity.11 Many African states rely on the African Union’s Malabo Convention for regional guidance, though only a few have fully implemented it.12
These frameworks show progress but also reveal structural dependence on external technology systems.
Case Studies
(i) The Schrems II ruling reshaped transatlantic data flows. It forced companies to use stronger safeguards and confirmed privacy as a constitutional value in Europe.
(ii) The Cambridge Analytica case (2018) demonstrated how personal data can be used for political influence. It exposed how weak regulation enables manipulation of democratic processes.
(iii) The Australian News Media Bargaining Code (2021) required digital platforms to pay for news content. When Facebook temporarily blocked news sharing, it highlighted how corporations can pressure governments.13
(iv) China’s Personal Information Protection Law (2021) and Data Security Law require local storage of sensitive data.14 This protects sovereignty but limits global information exchange.
(v) India’s draft Digital India Act (2024) proposes new accountability measures for intermediaries and stronger data protection obligations.15
International Law and Digital Sovereignty
International law is still catching up with digital realities. Data flows challenge the territorial logic on which most legal systems are built.
Human rights treaties offer partial protection. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects privacy. Article 19 safeguards expression.16 Yet these obligations apply only to states, not to corporations. There is no direct international mechanism to hold private companies responsible for data misuse.
The United Nations and the OECD have issued non-binding guidelines on responsible data governance.17 These initiatives promote ethical behaviour but lack enforcement power. Without a binding treaty, global technology firms continue to operate in legal grey zones.
Corporate Power and State Dependence
By 2025, Apple’s market value exceeded USD 3 trillion, surpassing the GDP of many countries.18 This economic power gives technology firms significant political influence. Governments depend on them for digital infrastructure, cloud computing, and security.
When states attempt to regulate, corporations often resist. During debates on antitrust reforms, large firms spent millions on lobbying in the United States and Europe.19 In developing countries, they negotiate favourable investment terms in return for regulatory leniency.
This imbalance creates a digital hierarchy. The Global South provides data and labour, while the Global North controls technology and value creation.
Reform Measures
To regain control over data and digital policy, states should take coordinated action.
(i) Develop a global treaty on data governance that harmonises privacy, cybersecurity, and transfer standards.
(ii) Extend human rights obligations to corporations through domestic law and international cooperation.
(iii) Enforce antitrust and taxation rules to prevent monopolies.
(iv) Build national and regional data infrastructure to reduce reliance on foreign networks.
(v) Require transparency in algorithmic decision-making and independent oversight of digital platforms.
The European Union’s new digital legislation offers a workable model that other regions can adapt to their needs.
Evaluation
Digital colonialism shows how legal systems lag behind technological change. The EU’s model provides strong protection but depends on political and economic strength. The U.S. model favours innovation but sacrifices privacy. The Global South is still building capacity to regulate effectively.
Current international frameworks are fragmented. No single regime ensures fairness or accountability in cross-border data flows. Without coordinated governance, the digital divide will widen and states will lose further control.
Conclusion
Digital colonialism has replaced traditional imperial control with data-driven dominance. Technology companies exercise influence that rivals or exceeds that of states. Law must evolve to preserve sovereignty, ensure accountability, and protect individual rights.
Real sovereignty now depends on control over data, infrastructure, and digital decision-making. States must cooperate to design fair, transparent, and rights-based digital systems. Without this cooperation, power will remain concentrated in the hands of corporations that operate beyond the reach of national law.
References:
- Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (Profile Books 2019).
- Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias, The Costs of Connection (Stanford University Press 2019).
- Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (9th edn, CUP 2021).
- Zuboff (n 1).
- Couldry and Mejias (n 2).
- U.S. CLOUD Act 2018.
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
- Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Schrems (Case C-311/18) [2020] ECR I-559.
- Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act); Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (Digital Markets Act).
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India).
- Data Protection Act 2019 (Kenya).
- African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention) 2014.
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, News Media Bargaining Code (2021).
- Personal Information Protection Law (China) 2021; Data Security Law (China) 2021.
- Draft Digital India Act 2024.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, arts 17, 19.
- OECD, Principles on Artificial Intelligence (2019); United Nations OHCHR, Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (2023).
- Financial Times, ‘Apple Becomes First $3 Trillion Company’ (2025).
- Center for Responsive Politics, Lobbying Data 2024.
