CCI Directs Detailed Investigation To Examine Alleged Anti-Competitive Conduct By Google

The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag held that selective onboarding denies market access to excluded developers, distorts competition and imposes unfair conditions.Brief Facts of the CaseWinzo Games Private Limited, the informant filed a case against Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and associated others (opposite parties) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. It was submitted that Google was abusing a dominant position by virtue of Section 4 of the Act. Google's Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA) and Developer Program Policies (DPP) are discriminatory and exclusionary, and it does not allow several real-money gaming apps in particular. The allegations also targeted Google's pilot program, which favored Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy apps, and its advertisement policies that excluded other Real Money Games (RMG) apps. Moreover, the Informant claimed that Google showed unwarranted warnings while sideloading, damaging its reputation and restricting access to the market.Contentions of Google Google argued that it needed to draw some boundaries on its app policy that excluded some apps by the RMG classification as its measures against potential legal risks through the highly fragmented gambling legislation of India. It is because the DFS and Rummy apps were chosen under the pilot program as it enjoys the certainty degree since courts class them as games of skill. Regarding advertisement restrictions, Google claimed that its policies for allowing ads for DFS and Rummy apps were consistent and based on applicable case laws. It denied any preferential treatment or discriminatory practices. On sideloading warnings, Google referred to Google LLC & Anr. v. CCI & Ors. (2023), where the NCLAT upheld such warnings as non-restrictive and compliant with intermediary rules. Google maintained its argument that the practices used were fair, transparent and targeted towards the safety and legal compliance of users.Observation by the CommissionThe Commission delineated three relevant markets for analysis: the market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India, the market for app stores for Android OS in India, and the market for online search advertising services in India. Referring to Google Android Case (2022) and Matrimony.com v. Google (2018), it affirmed Google's dominance in these markets. The Commission found that limiting the pilot program to DFS and Rummy apps while excluding other RMG apps created an uneven playing field. It held that this selective onboarding denied market access to excluded developers, distorted competition, and imposed unfair conditions, violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b), and 4(2)(c) of the Act. Furthermore, it was observed that restricting Google Ads to DFS and Rummy apps deprived other RMG developers of crucial advertising opportunities. It deemed this conduct discriminatory, anti-competitive, and violative of Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c). The Commission deferred ruling on sideloading warnings due to the pending appeal in Google LLC & Anr. v. CCI & Ors. (2023) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, it directed an investigation to assess the competitive impact of such warnings.Cited Cases and Rulings:Google Android Case (2022): The Commission ruled that Google held dominance in licensable OS and app store markets. It found Google's practices anti-competitive and restrictive towards app developers.Matrimony.com v. Google (2018): The Commission ruled that Google's advertising policies, while dominant, must be applied transparently without disadvantaging competitors.Google LLC & Anr. v. CCI & Ors. (2023): The NCLAT upheld sideloading warnings by Google, deeming them non-restrictive and compliant with intermediary rules.Based on its findings, the Commission directed a detailed investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act to examine the alleged anti-competitive conduct.Case Name: Winzo Games Private Limited Vs. Google LLC & Ors.Case No: 42 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

CCI Directs Detailed Investigation To Examine Alleged Anti-Competitive Conduct By Google

Ayushi Rani

Tags