Liberty Infospace Private Limited vs. Alphabet Inc and Others · 06 Oct 2025

Public Version

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No. 07 of 2025

In Re:

Liberty Infospace Pvt. Ltd.
104, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road,
Room No. 304, 3^rd Floor, Kolkata,
West Bengal – 700026
Informant

And

Alphabet Inc
1600, Amphitheatre Pkwy Mountain View,
CA, 94043-1351, United States,
CA 94043, USA
Opposite Party-1/OP-1

Google LLC
251 Little Falls Drive,
City of Wilmington, Country of New Castle,
Delaware 19808, United States of America
Opposite Party-2/OP-2

Google India Private Limited
No. 3, Old Madras Rd, Sadanandanagar,
Bennigana Halli, Bengaluru,
Karnataka – 560016, India
Opposite Party-3/OP-3

CORAM:

Ms. Ravneet Kaur
Chairperson

Mr. Anil Agrawal
Member

Ms. Sweta Kakkad
Member

Mr. Deepak Anurag
Member

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The present Information has been filed by Liberty Infospace Private Limited (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’), against Alphabet Inc (‘OP-1’), Google LLC (‘OP-2’), and Google India Private Limited (‘OP-3’) (collectively ‘Google’), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 the Act.

2. The Informant has stated that it is an unlisted private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. It is also stated to be registered as a Micro Enterprise under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (‘MSME’). It is stated to be, inter alia, engaged in the business of developing and maintaining a digital app named and styled as ‘EasyDo Tasks-HRMS Payroll AI’ (‘the HRMS App’).

3. OP-1 is stated to be a multi-national conglomerate holding company. It is stated to have been created through restructuring of ‘Google’ on 02.10.2015 and became the parent company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. OP-2 is stated to be a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware USA and a wholly owned subsidiary of OP-1. Some of the core products of Google, in particular its digital marketplace ‘Google Play Store’, are stated to be developed, provided and administered by OP-2. OP-3 is stated to be an indirect subsidiary of OP-2 (and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of OP-1).

4. As per the Informant, the HRMS App was conceived in early 2021 by the Informant’s sister-concern Liberty Highrise Private Limited (‘Liberty Highrise’). It was initially put to captive use for automating the repetitive office managing tasks of Liberty Highrise. It is an all-in-one solution in automating HRMS, Attendance, Approval Management, Chat Messenger & Personal Life App etc. Further, all its modules are fully integrated within a simple and very popular chat UI that ensures easy use and eliminates the requirement of any training and demo.

5. The Informant has averred that after the initial conception of the HRMS App, the Informant came to be incorporated by the promoters of Liberty Highrise. The Informant was to further develop and refine the app and thereafter make it viable for third parties/ users who were to access the same through various digital marketplaces including the Apple ‘App Store’ and the ‘Google Play Store’. Thus, the HRMS App grew in popularity amongst MSME Entrepreneurs/ CEOs & HODs for efficient office management.

6. As per the Information, on 11.02.2021, the Informant engaged the services of a third-party entity namely ‘Devstree IT Services Private Limited’ (‘Devstree’), a company based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in order to carry out various ancillary works including development of a ‘basic Chat Tab Module’, ‘Task Tab Module’ etc. for the HRMS App. It was agreed that Devstree was to complete all the tasks necessary to ensure the launch of the said app on the Google Play Store on 20.04.2021. Accordingly, the HRMS App got listed on the Google Play Store in 2021. It is stated that here have been around 100+ active users of the app on Google Play Store and 16,000 downloads. However, on Apple App Store, there were only 10 downloads.

7. The Informant has stated that in the routine course, in order to have HRMS App listed on Google Play Store, the Informant had entered into the then prevailing ‘Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement’ (‘GPDDA’) whereby OP-2 was designated as the agent of the Informant. Accordingly, OP-2 acted as the marketplace service provider for the HRMS App through its digital marketplace Google Play. It is stated that on the Google Play Console, the developer account of the Informant was associated with the e-mail ID pasta.app.2020@gmail.com. As required by Google, at the time of enlisting the HRMS App, the Informant uploaded all necessary documents including certificate of incorporation, address proof, contact details and its unique Data Universal Numbering System Number (‘DUNS’).

8. However, it is alleged that on 26.06.2024, the Informant’s Developer Account was terminated by Google without any prior notice or fair warning. The e-mail received by the Informant (‘Termination e-mail’) in this regard simply read “Your Developer Account remains terminated due to prior violations of the Developer Program Policies and Developer Distribution Agreement by this or associated previously terminated Google Play Developer Accounts. Please do not attempt to register a new developer account. Any new accounts will be closed, and your developer registration fee will not be refunded.”

9. It is stated that the Termination e-mail further prescribed that if the Informant felt that its account had been wrongly terminated, it can reach out to OP-2’s ‘Policy Support Team’. Accordingly, faced with the illegal termination in question and not knowing the exact reason for such termination, the Informant filed an appeal on 26.06.2024.

10. It is averred that since the precise reason for termination of the Informant was not mentioned in the Termination e-mail, the Informant also correspondingly undertook its own ‘extra due-diligence’ to find out any possible reason for the termination of its account. It is stated that upon internal enquiry and third-party enquiry with contractors/ vendors etc., the Informant gathered from its third-party contractor Devstree that out of the 20 developers engaged by Devstree, the personal account of one developer Shri Dakshay Sanghvi being dakshaysanghvi4395@gmail.com had also been terminated by OP-2. It is also stated that the Informant had no privity of contract with Shri Dakshay Sanghvi and has never acted through or in connivance with his personal account before it was terminated. Thereafter, the Informant terminated its agreement with Devstree and as of now, has no connection with it.

11. The Informant has stated that vide e-mail dated 05.07.2024, OP-2 again issued a cryptic response to the Informant, stating that “Thanks again for contacting the Google Play Team. I understand that you are looking for more information. As much as I’d like to help further, I’ve shared all details available to me regarding this matter. We recommend that you use an alternative method for distributing your apps in future. Thanks for your understanding.” The Informant states that this reply was even more cryptic than the original Termination e-mail and that OP-2 turned a deaf ear towards the explanations/ materials furnished by the Informant in its defense. It is alleged that the sole intent of the reply in question seems to be denial of information and perpetuation of opacity in matters of termination of accounts.

12. It is stated that faced with annihilation from the Android Market, the Informant issued another e-mail on 05.07.2024 urging OP-2 to at least suggest the next recourse for ascertainment of facts or at least provide the next step of escalation. On not receiving any response, the Informant issued another e-mail on 05.08.2024 enumerating detailed facts and enclosing an appeal further explaining its position and appealing for re-instating its account.

13. It is stated that thereafter, OP-2 replied vide final e-mail dated 06.11.2024, stating “Thanks again for contacting the Google Play Team. After review of your appeal, we’re unable to re-instate your Google Play Developer Account. We can confirm that we have found strong indications that your Developers Account is sharing information with or is related to, other Developer Accounts that have been terminated from Google Play for violating Google’s policies. As we have previously explained, in order to prevent bad-faith developers from gaming our systems and putting our users at risk in the process, we cannot share the reasons we’ve concluded that one account is related to another.”

14. The Informant has alleged abuse of dominance by Google in unilateral termination of its developer account, without assigning any specific reasons.

15. The Informant has also submitted that the sum and substance of the dispute in the present case pertains to the illegal suspension of the Informant’s developer account on the mobile app store of OP-2 namely the Google Play Store which is a digital marketplace for apps meant for the Android operating system (‘OS’). It is further stated that the app store of OP-2 viz. the Google Play Store has been offering apps for the Android OS since 2003. It is stated that formerly known as the ‘Android Market’, in the year 2021, the same was integrated into Google Play and was christened as the ‘Play Store’. As per the Informant, it is a well-known fact that Google Play Store is a widely preferred play store amongst users therefore, relying on factors stated under Section 19(7) of the Act as well as the Commission’s decisions passed in Case No. 39 of 2018 titled Umar Javeed and Others v. Google LLC and Others (‘Google Play Case’), and Case No. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 and 35 of 2021 titled XYZ (Confidential) v. Alphabet Inc and Others (‘Alphabet Case’), the Informant submitted the relevant product market in the present case as the ‘market for app store for Android Smart mobile OS’.

16. Relying upon the Commission’s afore-mentioned decisions and factors stated under Section 19(6) of the Act, as well as an article dated 18.08.2022 published in the Hindustan Times titled “Google Play after 10 years: 200% increase in monthly active users for Indian Apps”, it is stated that apps developed in India have increased on Play Store and that India is one of the top downloaders of apps and games in the world. Therefore, the Informant has submitted that Google has India-specific initiatives from time to time, and accordingly the relevant geographic market in the present case be delineated as ‘India’.

17. Therefore, the Informant proposed the relevant market in the present case as the “market for app store for Android Smart mobile OS in India”.

18. Relying upon the Commission’s afore-mentioned decisions as well as factors stated under Section 19(4) of the Act, it is stated that Google is in a dominant position. It is also stated that Google itself, in Competition Appeal (AT) No. 01 of 2023 titled Google LLC and Others v. Competition Commission of India and Others, conceded in this regard, which is noted at Para 78 of the Hon’ble NCLAT order dated 29.03.2023: “No submission has been advanced before us questioning the finding of dominance recorded by the Commission.” Apart from such findings, reliance in this regard has also been placed by the Informant on an article titled “Top Google Play Store Statistics, 2024 – Exploring the Key Insights” to submit that the dominant position of Google Play Store remains unaltered even in the year 2024.

19. It is alleged by the Informant that, firstly, it was made to enter into one-sided and dotted GPDDA by Google in order to get its HRMS App listed on Google Play Store.

20. Secondly, clause 10 of the GPDDA, which pertained to termination thereof, stated at 10.3 that prior to termination of the GPDDA, a 30 day or more notice was necessary. Termination of a Developer’s Account on Google Play Console amounts to termination of the GPDDA itself. As such, as per the Informant, while terminating the Developer Account i.e. GPDDA of the Informant, no such notice was given to it by Google, which again amounts to abuse of dominance.

21. Thirdly, the Informant alleged that under clause 4.1 of the GPDDA, the Informant was required to adhere to the Google Play Developer Program Policies (‘GPDPP’) of OP-2. Like the GPDDA, even these policies were also standard documents and consent to adhere to these policies was mandatory for any app to be listed on Google Play Store.

22. Fourthly, as per the Informant, termination of its Developer Account by OP-2 amounted to an ‘Enforcement Action’ which is governed by the Enforcement Policy (‘Enforcement Policy’) of OP-2. Under the Enforcement Policy, only repeated or serious violations (such as malware, fraud, and apps that may cause user or device harm) requires termination of individual or related Google Play Developer Accounts.

23. Further, the Informant has stated that a bare perusal of Google’s Enforcement Policy indicates that while reviewing accounts for determining the illegality or violation by any account, relevant information such as account information (for example, past history of policy violations), any third-party code in apps, and other information provided through reporting mechanisms (where applicable) and own-initiative reviews are taken into consideration. Further, ‘Enforcement Actions’ such as termination of developer account on the Google Play console are to be inflicted only if the said account violates any of the GPDPP.

24. In particular, it has been, inter alia, stipulated in the said Enforcement Policy that: