>> Unlike Company rule in India [3] where one had little recourse as a subject if the EIC ruled against you; if Google rules against you then you can move to so

>> Unlike Company rule in India [3] where one had little recourse as a subject if the EIC ruled against you; if Google rules against you then you can move to some other provider (of which there are many). I totally disagree. Early EIC/VOC rule was lawless. Or rather, the EIC was literally sovereign. They ruled colonies in the same way that monarchies, democracies and whatnot rule. 17th century royal charters devolved power to these companies like they devolved power to colonial governorships or other bodies. The early EIC is more comparable to the Colony of Virginia, which itself started as the Virginia Company. All technically ruled under a royal charter, but were practically sovereign within their domains. Later EIC rule was more similar to modern corporate examples. Rule of Law was ostensibly introduced, and you could (in theory) take your grievances to civil authorities. In some ways, this starts to become similar to modern examples of corporatism. The EIC was still extremely big, rich and powerful. But in this later period, state power and state coffers interweaved Later, British state rule.