CCI Closes Digital Market Abuse Complaint Against Sundar Pichai, Apple, Amazon and Others

The competition watchdog held that no prima facie case under competition law was made out.

A coram led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, along with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, in an order on January 5, found that the allegations failed to disclose any contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, which deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.

“Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.”, the CCI observed.

The matter arose from an information filed by an individual entrepreneur, who alleged that dominant players in online search, advertising and digital intermediation, along with certain individuals were manipulating digital identifiers, suppressing online visibility and diverting customer traffic and paid advertising leads to competitors. The informant claimed that such conduct resulted in denial of market access, market allocation and unfair discrimination, causing serious commercial harm and loss of business opportunities.

The complaint was made against prominent technology platforms, e-commerce companies and individuals, and sought interim relief to restrain the alleged diversion of traffic, restore fair access to digital marketing tools and stop purported malicious interference with business relationships.

After examining the record, the CCI observed that the allegations were vague and without supporting evidence. It noted that the complaint failed to clearly attribute any specific role to the numerous opposite parties and that the material relied upon, including screenshots, was largely illegible and incapable of meaningful scrutiny.

The Commission held that the informant had not demonstrated any nexus between the alleged conduct and an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. In the absence of cogent pleadings or credible evidence of collusion or abuse of dominance, the CCI concluded that no investigation was warranted.

The CCI accordingly closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act and rejected the request for interim relief. It clarified that the allegations did not merit intervention.

Case Title: Preeti Kodwani vs Sundar Pichai & Ors

Case Number: Case No. 36 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order