TANZANIA’S competition week unfolded this year with a familiar mix of official ceremony and public optimism, yet the undercurrent felt different, more restless, more aware that the rules of the marketplace are shifting faster than the institutions meant to guide it.

Inside the Fair Competition Commission’s headquarters in Dar es Salaam, the mood was lively enough on the surface, with the usual greetings, polite jokes, and the soft clatter of name tags brushing against formal jackets. 

Nonetheless, beneath that predictable choreography was a quieter tension: a shared sense that the digital era, especially the accelerating spread of artificial intelligence, has introduced challenges far more intricate than the ones the FCC confronted in years past.

“We’re dealing with markets shaped by forces we didn’t grow up with,” one senior FCC officer remarked during a short break, speaking with an openness that didn’t sound rehearsed. He leaned against the doorway, arms loosely folded, as if grounding himself in a moment where honesty felt more useful than formality. 

“AI isn’t just a new tool. It’s a power shift. And regulators everywhere are scrambling to catch up.” His words hung in the air with the weight of both urgency and fatigue, the kind that comes from navigating a system struggling to adapt in real time.

Competition week has always been a platform for affirming the core mission of the Fair Competition Act: consumer protection, fair play, and market integrity. Yet this year, the event felt more like a pause for collective reflection. For decades, Tanzania’s consumer protection landscape has carried a mixture of ambition and limitation. 

The move toward a liberalized economy in the late 1980s brought excitement but also exposed consumers to new vulnerabilities. The Fair Competition Act of 2003 helped organize the regulatory framework to deal with these emerging pressures, introducing prohibitions on unfair practices and unsafe goods. But as several FCC staff quietly acknowledged, the market has since changed in ways the original legislation could never have predicted.

One long-serving officer, speaking in a tone softened by years of public service, admitted, “We wanted a system that empowered everyday people. But in practice, the law often feels more accessible to institutions than to consumers.”

 He didn’t sound frustrated with the public; if anything, he sounded frustrated on their behalf. His reflections captured something many Tanzanians understand intuitively: navigating disputes over faulty goods or misleading contracts often requires stamina, the kind that many consumers simply don’t have time or resources to muster.

That imbalance becomes more glaring when viewed against the rise of digital commerce. While the Electronic Transactions Act provides guardrails, enforcement in a borderless online landscape is difficult. During the week’s discussions, the FCC laid out its growing concerns: fake online vendors, algorithmically manipulated prices, and counterfeit products hiding behind polished websites.

 As one officer put it, “It’s not just the products that are sophisticated now—it’s the people behind them, the systems that learn from consumer behavior, and the way data gets used without anyone fully understanding how.”

This sense of widening complexity shaped nearly every session. Speakers revisited the intention behind establishing institutions like the Fair Competition Tribunal and the National Consumer Advocacy Council, acknowledging their roles but also their limits.

 Consumers harmed by unfair practices can receive compensation under the law, yet they cannot seek it directly through the Commission. Instead, they must take their cases through the courts—spaces that can feel distant, slow, and financially burdensome. Many people, especially those in rural areas, quietly accept losses that should never be theirs to bear.

One FCC director described this reality with a kind of thoughtful resignation. “We have the authority to intervene,” he said, “but our reach doesn’t always extend to the people who need us most. That’s the part that stays with you.” The remark wasn’t dramatic; it felt more like an honest confession from someone who has spent years seeing the gap between policy and people widen in subtle, persistent ways.

The rural-urban divide deepens the challenge. Counterfeit batteries, diluted cooking oil, and imitation pharmaceuticals often circulate through informal markets where enforcement is nearly impossible. 

When harm occurs, victims rarely have receipts or proof, and the Merchandise Marks Act limits who can report counterfeit goods, an ironic barrier that leaves consumers both vulnerable and unheard. These problems existed long before AI entered the scene, but artificial intelligence is reshaping them, amplifying old risks and introducing new ones.

During one session, an FCC representative explained the emerging threat through a simple example: “If AI can analyze a consumer’s browsing habits, income level, and even emotional triggers, it can manipulate prices or product recommendations without the consumer noticing. 

That’s not just a technological issue; it’s a fairness issue.” The room fell quiet, not because the idea was new, but because it crystallized a fear many participants had carried but hadn’t articulated: that the market may soon know consumers better than they know themselves.

Still, amid the concerns, the week offered moments of grounded optimism. Officials highlighted new efforts to build partnerships with digital platforms, enhance rural outreach, and modernize the aging sections of the Fair Competition Act. They emphasized the need for regional cooperation, recognizing that cross-border digital fraud cannot be tackled by any nation working alone. They also discussed community-centered education strategies, understanding that consumer protection begins with awareness, not punishment.

What made this competition week stand out was not a sense of crisis but a willingness to acknowledge complexity. Rather than presenting an image of total institutional control, the FCC allowed itself to be candid about the challenges ahead. 

That transparency lent the conversations a more human tone, as though the audience was being invited into the daily dilemmas of regulators who are trying to protect consumers in a world where deceit can be coded into algorithms.

Walking out of the venue after the final panel, one could sense a lingering blend of unease and determination. The atmosphere suggested a recognition that the country has reached a moment where old tools alone will not suffice. 

If Tanzania hopes to protect consumers in an increasingly digital economy, and if the Fair Competition Act is to remain more than a symbolic promise, the system must evolve. Not slowly, not cautiously, but at a pace that acknowledges the speed with which technology is reshaping the marketplace.

An FCC official summed up the week’s mood in a reflective aside as attendees filtered out into the warm afternoon light. “Consumers are the backbone of this economy,” he said, adjusting the stack of documents he carried. 

“If the world around them is changing, we have to change with it. Otherwise, we’re not really protecting anyone.” His words weren’t delivered for effect; they sounded like something he had been repeating to himself long before the microphones and the speeches.

In that moment, his reflection felt like a fitting conclusion to a week defined not by slogans or ceremony, but by an honest confrontation with the future. And perhaps that honesty, more than any formal declaration, is what Tanzania will need as it confronts the new era of AI-powered markets, an era that demands regulators who are not only vigilant but willing to evolve as quickly as the world they are trying to safeguard.