Delhi High Court Directs Google To Maintain Status Quo In An Advertisement Agreement, Citing Irreparable Loss Due To Ad Blockage

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh also reiterated that a Section 9 petition would be maintainable in an arbitration with seat of arbitration outside India.

Facts

Startupwala Pvt. Ltd (Petitioner) entered into an agreement with Google India Pvt. Ltd (Respondent) to utilize its digital advertising services, starting in 2020.

The agreement was subject to Respondent's Advertising Program Terms, which included policies available on its website. It also contained an arbitration that with seat of arbitration in United States of America (USA).

Since August 2023, Respondent started disapproving some of Petitioner's advertisements, citing a policy called 'Government Documents and Official Services.'

Petitioner, engaged in corporate and management consultancy services, relies heavily on these ads for revenue. Despite multiple communications between August 2023 and February 2024, Respondent's responses were automated and did not provide specific reasons for disapprovals. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and approached the High Court for seeking interim reliefs under Section 9 of the A&C Act.

Submissions by the parties:

The Petitioner made the following submissions:

• That the advertisements are crucial for their revenue and that Google's actions were causing significant financial losses.
• The Petitioner had been in continuous correspondence with Respondent from August 2023 to February 2024, but the responses were unsatisfactory.

The respondent made the following objections to the maintainability of the Petition:

• The seat of arbitration is in US, ergo, the petition is not maintainable.

Analysis by the Court:

The Court considered the arbitration clause, which stipulated arbitration in Santa Clara County, California, USA, under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association.

The Court dispelled the argument by observing that a Section 9 petition is maintainable even in an arbitration with a foreign seat.

The Court observed that due to the Respondent's actions of blocking the Petitioner's add, the Petitioner is deprived of its revenue on which it heavily relies. Keeping in mind the irreparable loss to the Petitioner, the Court directed Respondent maintain the status quo on currently unblocked advertisements labeled as 'Eligible (limited)' until the next hearing.

Case Title: Startupwala Pvt. Ltd v. Google India Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 400

Date: 27.03.2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Devashish Marwah Ms. Biyanka Bhatia Ms. Aneesha Rastogi & Mr. Shohit, Advs

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Vihan Dang, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Ms. Pragya Jain, Mr. Ujjawal Bhargava & Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advs.

Click Here To Read/Download Order