Google Reaches Settlement with CCI Over Smart TV Operating System.

The Competition Commission of India has reached a settlement with Google for ₹20.24 crore over anti-competitive practices related to its operating system software. The Commission, headed by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, considered the report submitted by the Director General and found that Google had imposed unfair conditions through agreements such as the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA) and Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC), thereby violating provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. This settlement marks the first resolution of a case under the new amendment made in 2023. Background The informants allegs that Google's Android operating software, which is used to power the user interfaces on devices holds the dominant position in the relevant market. This software was the most popular and widely adopted by TV and smartphone manufacturers, also known as Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Google had entered into agreements known as the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA) and the Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) with smart TV OEMs. It was alleged that, through restrictive clauses in these agreements, OEMs were required to pre-install the entire bundle of Google Apps included in the Google TV Services (GTVS) on their smart TV devices. Additionally, the agreements provided for the placement of pre-installed Google apps on the home screen, with a particular order that OEMs were obligated to follow, leaving OEMS with no control over the user interface. If OEMs wanted to include any third-party applications, the TADA allegedly required that these apps be displayed only after Google's own apps.It is the case of the informants that such agreements violated the provisions of Section 3(4) and Section 4 of the Competition Act. The Competition Commission of India, through a prima facie order dated 22.06.2021,found that device manufacturers were forced to sign the Android Compatibility Commitment (ACC) as a precondition for installing Google's proprietary apps, such as the Play Store. This agreement prevented OEMs from developing or distributing devices that used alternative versions of Android.Further, the TADA agreement, which required OEMs to pre-install Google apps like YouTube, was also identified as an anti-competitive practice.The commission directed the Director General to investigate and submit the report.The Director General submitted an Investigation Report to the Commission, which found that Google abused its dominance by tying Play Store access to the ACC agreement, restricting Android forks and limiting market access.Following the adverse findings in the DG's report, Google submitted its first Settlement Application on 21.05.2024, seeking to resolve the proceedings. While considering the settlement application, the Commission sought the views of stakeholders. During this process, the informants expressed concerns over the lack of clarity regarding the scope of the waiver and additional obligations. They also argued that the issues of pre-installation and uninstallation options for Google apps were not addressed and deemed the five-year commitment insufficient. This prompted the Commission to seek clarification from Google regarding the settlement terms. Subsequently, on 26.06.2024, Google submitted an updated summary of the settlement proposal and requested that the Commission consider the revised proposal for further settlement proceedings in the matter. Observation of the Director General The DG, considering factors such as market share, Google's control over Android, and consumers' reliance on the Android OS, observed that Android Smart TV OS held a dominant position in the relevant market of licensable Smart TV operating systems. In examining the potential for a tie-in agreement, the DG found that the TADA and ACC agreements were signed together, effectively requiring OEMs to preinstall Google's proprietary applications, including the Play Store, in order to access essential services. This practice restricted device manufacturers' ability and incentive to develop and market devices using alternative versions of Android (Android forks), thereby hindering technical and scientific development and blocking market access for fork developers. The DG also noted that Google's terms prevented OEMs from pre-installing or working on non-compatible Android versions across all devices marketed under the same brand, even those not using Google's proprietary apps or based on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Additionally, Google's requirement for OEMs to seek approval for all devices and refrain from distributing non-GTVS versions of Android imposed supplementary obligations unrelated to the contracts' main purpose. These actions were found to violate the Competition Act by limiting competition and innovation within the Android ecosystem. Furthermore, when investigating whether Google had...

Google Reaches Settlement with CCI Over Smart TV Operating System.

Muhammed Razik

Tags