Zucol Solutions vs. Google India Regarding Developer Account Termination
CCI competition order Case No. 17 of 2025 · 24 Mar 2026
Official title
M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited vs. Google India Private Limited
CCI competition order Case No. 17 of 2025 · 24 Mar 2026
Official title
M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited vs. Google India Private Limited
Summary
Check the official recordThe Competition Commission of India (CCI) closed the information filed by M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited against Google India Private Limited concerning the termination of its developer accounts on the Google Play Store. The Informant alleged that Google abused its dominant position by arbitrarily terminating its accounts and failing to provide a fair appeal process. Upon review, the Commission found that the Informant provided inconsistent information, suppressed material facts—including the reinstatement of its primary account—and failed to comply with the Commission's directions. The Commission concluded that the dispute was an individual grievance where redressal had been availed through internal mechanisms, and no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act was established.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Public Version
Case No. 17 of 2025
Page 1 of 22
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 17 of 2025
In re:
M/s Zucol Solutions Private Limited Unit No. 201, 2nd Floor, Mangalam Signature Tower, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur – 302015 Rajasthan.
…Informant And
Google India Private Limited No. 3, RMZ Infinity – Tower E, Old Madras Road, 4th & 5th Floors, Bangalore – 560016, Karnataka. …Opposite Party
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
Public Version
Case No. 17 of 2025
Page 2 of 22
The Informant is stated to be a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. It is stated to be engaged in the business of digital software development and mobile application services.
The OP is stated to provide a digital distribution platform through the Google Play Store (‘Play Store’), which allows developers to publish, manage and distribute Android applications to users globally. It facilitates in-app billing, user reviews, app analytics, and policy enforcement tools. Additionally, it also offers backend services like Firebase, APIs, and advertising platforms to support app growth and monetization. It is stated that given its dominance in the Android ecosystem, the Play Store is often the primary gateway for app visibility and user access.
The Informant stated that it had created a Google Developer Account (‘GDA’) (account ID: 6466909330537599514) (‘First Account’) on the Google Play platform, which operates under the Google Play Services ecosystem – an entity that holds a dominant position in the Android mobile application market, to list the mobile applications developed by the Informant.
It is further stated that the OP, without giving any prior notice or intimation, terminated the Informant’s GDA on 20.09.2023 stating that the said account is violating Google’s Developer Program Policies (‘DPP’) and Developer Distribution Agreement (‘DDA’).
It is stated that after the GDA was terminated, the Informant tried to communicate with the OP asking for the reason for termination and an appeal was raised on the ‘Google Play Console’ platform on 21.09.2023. It was claimed by the OP that the termination of the Informant’s GDA was on account of the application titled ‘Pobreflix – Series, Movies’, which was alleged to be in violation of the Google’s DPP and DDA.
As per the Informant, that it was communicated to the OP that the said application did not belong to the Informant and that it was developed and published by an external contractual developer. It is stated that upon receiving information regarding the alleged policy violations associated with the said application, the Informant immediately terminated all contractual relations with the concerned developer and requested the OP multiple times
Public Version
Case No. 17 of 2025
Page 3 of 22
to take necessary and appropriate action limited to the said application, while also requesting a fair and impartial review of the remaining compliant applications under the Informant’s developer account.
It is stated that despite these representations and requests, the OP in an arbitrary and unjust manner, proceeded to terminate the entire developer account of the Informant without any reasonable justification. The Informant has alleged that this conduct of the OP not only violates the principles of natural justice but also amounts to abuse of dominant position and is liable to scrutiny.
It is further alleged that even as on the date of filing the Information, the application responsible for the alleged violations remains active and publicly listed on the Google Play Store under a different developer account.
It is stated that further correspondence was initiated by the Informant with the OP, requesting that if the application ‘Pobreflix – Series, Movies’ or any other particular app was found to be in violation of the DPP and DDA, the OP may take necessary action solely against that application and review the remaining compliant applications fairly and independently. It is alleged that despite repeated requests for a specific review and resolution, OP failed to respond appropriately and instead stuck to the termination of the entire developer account without providing any proper justification or due process.
It is stated that subsequently, on 31.05.2024, the Informant created a separate and independent developer account on Google Play platform (account ID: 7941074486004459573) (‘Second Account’) through which only a single application namely BTHAWK was listed. However, on 06.07.2024, the Second Account was also terminated by the OP on the ground of past policy violations associated with the Informant’s First Account. According to the Informant, the new developer account had no connection to any previous violations or flagged accounts, and the termination of the same by the OP without any specific or detailed explanation was arbitrary and entirely unjustified.
Public Version
Case No. 17 of 2025
Page 4 of 22
It was further stated that subsequent to the termination of the Second Account, the Informant submitted an appeal to the OP on 20.07.2024 seeking clarification and justification for the termination and on the same day, the OP provided a response via email asserting that the Second Account is terminated due to its connection with the First Account, including information sharing.
The Informant has alleged that the OP had only offered a vague acknowledgement of their action, and had failed to provide a clear justification for the same. It is alleged that the OP has not provided any evidence substantiating the relationship between the two accounts. It was alleged that the OP has not identified specific provisions within the DPP or the DDA that the Informant is purported to have violated. Furthermore, the OP had expressly cautioned the Informant against creating a new developer account, stating that any such account shall also be subject to immediate termination. According to the Informant, this warning effectively prohibits the Informant from re-entering the market and amounts to a denial of access to the Android app distribution ecosystem.
It was stated that the Informant served legal notices dated 29.03.2025 and 01.05.2025 to the OP through its legal counsel. Despite multiple representations and follow up communications, the OP failed to provide any specific explanation or a fair opportunity of appeal, which resulted in substantial financial losses, reputational harm, and exclusion from the market. The Informant has alleged that such conduct constitutes abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act.
In view of the above, the Informant had prayed for the following reliefs from the Commission:
a) Direct the Director General (‘DG’) to initiate an investigation under Section 26 (1) of the Act;
b) Declare that the OP has contravened Sections 3 and 4 of the Act;
c) Direct the OP to reinstate the Informant’s developer accounts or allow creation of a new account with transfer of all compliant applications;
d) Order monetary compensation of INR 57 Crore to the Informant for the losses incurred;
Public Version
Case No. 17 of 2025