Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 1
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 37 of 2022
In Re:
People Interactive India Private Limited
Informant
And
Alphabet Inc.
Opposite Party No. 1
Google LLC Opposite Party No. 2
Google India Private Limited Opposite Party No. 3
Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party No. 4
WITH
Case No. 17 of 2023
In Re:
Mebigo Labs Private Limited
Informant
And
Alphabet Inc.
Opposite Party No. 1
Google LLC Opposite Party No. 2
Google India Private Limited Opposite Party No. 3
Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party No. 4
WITH
Case No. 27 of 2023
In Re:
Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation
Informant No. 1
Indian Digital Media Industry Foundation Informant No. 2
And
Alphabet Inc.
Opposite Party No. 1
Google LLC Opposite Party No. 2
Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 2
Google India Private Limited Opposite Party No. 3
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.
Opposite Party No. 4
Google Ireland Ltd
Opposite Party No. 5
CORAM:
Ms. Ravneet Kaur
Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal
Member
Ms. Sweta Kakkad
Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag
Member
Present
For People Interactive India
Private Limited (PIIPL)
: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abir
Roy, Mr. Aman Shankar, Mr. Vivek Pandey, Mr.
Udit Dedhiya and Mr. Sasthibrata Panda,
Advocates
For
Mebigo
Labs
Private
Limited (Mebigo)
: Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. Aman Shankar, Mr. Vivek
Pandey and Mr. Sasthibrata Panda, Advocates
For Indian Broadcasting and
Digital Foundation (IBDF) and
Indian Digital Media Industry
Foundation (IDMIF)
: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Pallavi Shroff, Mr. Yaman Verma, Ms. Parinita
Kare, Mr. Ritwik Bhattacharya, Mr. Rohan
Bhargava, Mr. Shivek S. Endlaw, Advocates
along with Mr. Rishi Sharma and Ms. Siboney
Sagar, Representative of IBDF/IDMIF
For Alphabet Inc., Google LLC,
Google Ireland Limited, Google
India Private Limited, Google
Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. and
: Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Karan
Singh
Chandhiok,
Ms.
Deeksha
Manchanda, Ms. Avaantika Kakkar, Mr.
Kaustav Kundu, Mr. Tarun Donadi, Ms.
Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 3
Google India Digital Services
Private Limited (collectively,
‘Google’/ ‘OPs’)
Bhavika Chhabra, Mr. Palash Maheswari, Ms.
Raksha
Agrawal,
Mr.
Aditya
Sahagal,
Advocates along with Mr. Thomas Bohnett, Ms.
Aditi Gopalkrishnan and Ms. Richa Srivastava,
Representatives of Google.
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
1.
The Informations in the captioned cases have been filed under Section 19(1)(a) of
the Competition Act (hereinafter, `the Act') against Google alleging contravention
of Section 4 of the Act, on its part.
2.
As the subject matter of all these Informations is substantially the same, this
common order is being issued in respect of allegations made in the same.
3.
Case No. 37 of 2022 has been filed by People Interactive India Private Limited
(PIIPL) which is stated to be an internet company and operates brands such as
Shaadi.com and Sangam.com and providing online matchmaking classified service
across the globe.
4.
Case No. 17 of 2023 has been filed by Mebigo Labs Private Limited (Mebigo)
which is stated to be an internet company that owns the brand such as Kuku FM and
provides audio content such as audiobooks, stories, originals and similar categories
through apps and website across the globe.
5.
Case No. 27 of 2023 has been filed by Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation
(IBDF) and Indian Digital Media Industry Foundation (IDMIF). IBDF is stated to
be a leading association which inter alia works towards the interests of the Indian
television industry and the digital media industry, including but not limited to online
curated content publishers (OCCPs)/over the top (OTT)/video on demand (VOD)
application developers. IDMIF is stated to be a subsidiary of IBDF representing
OCCP members who operate/manage applications/websites that reach millions of
Indian consumers.
Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 4
6. Alphabet Inc. is a multinational technology conglomerate holding company. It was
created through a restructuring of Google on 02.10.2015 and became the parent
company of Google and several former Google subsidiaries. Google LLC is a
Delaware (USA) based limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
Alphabet Inc. Google’s core products and services, including its proprietary digital
store for mobile based applications, i.e., Google Play Store, and its proprietary OS,
i.e., Android OS are developed, provided, and administered by Google LLC. Google
Ireland Limited (Google Ireland) is a legal entity formed under the laws of Ireland.
Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, a subsidiary of Google LLC, is incorporated in
Singapore and it provides management services on a contract or fee basis. Google
Asia Pacific offers online content services for users, advertisers, and other content
providers. Google India Private Limited is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 2013. It has been appointed by Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. as a
non-exclusive authorised reseller of online advertisement space in India as provided
by Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd through Google Ads program to advertisers in India.
All these entities are collectively referred to as ‘Google’.
7.
The Informants are primarily aggrieved with Google’s updated payment policies in
relation to its proprietary app store (i.e., Google Play Store), which is alleged to be
in violation of Section 4 of the Act and is stated to be impacting several stakeholders,
including app developers, payment processors, and users alike.
8.
It has been averred that for app developers to be able to distribute their apps through
the Google Play Store, they are inter alia required to accept Google Play Store’s
non-negotiable payment policies. Google Play Store’s payment policies previously
mandated that: (a) all payments for paid app downloads and in-app purchases (IAPs)
on digital service apps, must only be processed through Google’s own payment
processing system (i.e., Google Play Billing System, (GPBS)); and (b) app
developers must pay a commission of 15% / 30% to Google for each such
transaction, inter alia as consideration for the payment processing services Google
is offering to these app developers. It has been further stated that several terms of
Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 5
Google’s payment policies were earlier found to be anti-competitive by the
Commission vide an order dated 25.10.2022 passed under Section 27 of the Act, in
Case Nos. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 and 35 of 2021 (‘Google Play Case’). In this case,
Google was found to have contravened various provisions of Section 4 of the Act,
as detailed therein.
9.
In September 2022, Google introduced ‘User Choice Billing’ pilot wherein certain
changes were made to Google Play Store’s payment policies. Amongst others,
Google announced that app developers offering digital content can offer alternative
billing systems (ABS) alongside GPBS. Further, for transactions which are
processed through GPBS (on apps offering digital content), Google will continue to
impose a 15% / 30% service fee / commission. Where a user avails an ABS to
complete any transaction on these apps, the rate of commission payable to Google
by the app developer would be reduced by 4% (i.e., reduced to 11% from 15%; or
26% from 30%, as the case may be). It has been averred that in the UCB system,
Google is offering an illusory choice for users to opt for an alternative billing option
next to Google Play's billing system.
10.
The updated policies of Google have been alleged to be discriminatory and unfair
which skew and disrupt competition in the downstream app markets and continue
to favour Google’s own apps and cement Google’s position in the payment
processing market as well. It has been further alleged that Google imposes a service
fee / commission model wherein it admittedly makes only 3% of the app developers
bear the entire cost of all 100% of the app developers on the Google Play Store by
charging them an exorbitant service fee / commission without any commensurate
additional services. Further, Google’s service fee is also alleged to be excessive as
this commission / fee has no reasonable economic relation to the services provided
by Google.
11.
It has been stated that Google’s discriminatory policies and excessive fee /
commission is also likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition
(AAEC) in other markets. As a result of Google’s discriminatory conduct, a limited
