Laws and sections by number or title, due dates, pages, and updates.
The Competition Commission of India dismisses the interim relief applications filed by various informants against Google concerning updated payment policies for the Google Play Store. The Commission rules that the informants fail to demonstrate a higher level of prima facie case, irreparable harm, or a balance of convenience required to grant interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Director General continues the ongoing investigation into the matter without influence from these observations.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Ask about this competition order
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 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 Google India Digital Services Private Limited (collectively, ‘Google’/ ‘OPs’) : Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Singh Chandhiok, Ms. Deeksha Manchanda, Ms. Avaantika Kakkar, Mr. Kaustav Kundu, Mr. Tarun Donadi, Ms. 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 33 of the Competition Act, 2002
The present order shall govern the disposal of interim relief prayers made by the Informants seeking interim relief in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) against the arrayed Opposite Parties. The Commission, vide an order dated 15.03.2024 passed under Section 26(1) of the Act, prima facie found a case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act against the Opposite Parties, as detailed therein, and ordered the Director General (“DG”) to cause an investigation to be made into the matter.
By way of background, it is noted that the Informations in the captioned cases have been filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act against Google alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Act, on its part.
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.
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.
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. IDMIF is stated to be a subsidiary of IBDF.
The Opposite Parties offers various internet-based products including a proprietary digital store for mobile based applications, i.e., Google Play Store, and its proprietary OS, i.e., Android OS.
Google filed its reply on the allegations as well as interim relief applications on 28.02.2024 and thereafter, the Informants also filed their respective rejoinders on 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024. The Commission also heard the detailed arguments made by the learned senior counsel(s) appearing on behalf of PIIPL, IBDF/IDMIF and Google and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mebigo on 06.03.2024. Thereafter, the Commission decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. The parties have also filed brief synopsis of their oral arguments.
The Informants are primarily aggrieved with Google’s updated payment policies in relation to its proprietary app store (i.e., Google Play Store), which are 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.
The Commission considered the information available on record and vide its order dated 15.03.2024 passed under Section 26(1) of the Act noted that the Informants are primarily aggrieved by the billing policy of Google for in-app purchases and paid apps. The Commission in the said prima facie order has delineated two relevant markets in the present case for examining the alleged abusive conduct of Google i.e., the market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India and the market for app stores for Android smart mobile OS in India. Further, Google has also been found to be dominant in these two relevant markets. The Commission has also formed a prima facie view that Google has violated the provisions of Section 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Act, as detailed therein which warrants detailed investigation. The Director General (‘DG’) has been directed to complete the investigation and submit a consolidated investigation report within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the said order.
In this backdrop, the Commission deems it appropriate to consider the interim relief prayer made by the Informants. During the course of hearing, all the parties made detailed arguments on the interim relief prayers. The Informants vide their post hearing submissions filed revised interim prayers. For felicity of reference, these interim relief prayers are excerpted below:
Combined Interim Prayers filed by PIIPL and Mebigo
It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission, pending a final order in this case, may graciously be pleased to:-
Direct that Google should not mandate the sharing of any financial information or payment transaction-related data (whether manually or through API), if, an in-app purchase or paid transaction is processed inside an app through third-party billing systems (other than GPBS).
Prohibit Google from levying any fee / commission, if, an in-app purchase or paid transaction is processed inside an app through third-party billing systems.
Direct Google to keep in abeyance its policy of mandating any guidelines, including UI/UX Guidelines (interim or final) which provides for user interface / flow;
Direct Google not to delist and/or hamper the visibility of the apps listed on Play Store for non-adherence to the Impugned Policies of Google.
Pass any other order as may be appropriate under the Competition Act, 2002.
Interim Relief Prayers filed by IBDF/IDMIF
