Why the Google Play Store case could redefine India’s digital markets

On appeal in March 2023, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld certain findings but reduced the penalty to ₹216 crores and removed some forward-looking directives, including the “gatekeeper” designation. Both Google and the CCI have now approached the Supreme Court, with hearings set for November 2025.

At stake are three critical questions. First, whether the CCI can impose structural, forward-looking remedies under the current Competition Act. Second, how dominance should be evaluated in digital markets shaped by network effects and vertical integration. And third, whether global platform practices should be declared anti-competitive in India without detailed, market-specific evidence. 

In my cross-border work, I have seen these very questions determine the operational freedom of major platforms for years.

The “gatekeeper” issue is particularly important. Unlike the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which explicitly defines and regulates gatekeepers, India’s competition regime is ex-post; it intervenes only after an abuse is found. The NCLAT’s removal of the gatekeeper label reinforced that such a designation requires a clear legislative mandate. Bringing it back through judicial interpretation could effectively impose ex-ante obligations before Parliament has even finalised the Digital Competition Bill.

Another focal point is the order for third-party billing. While such a move is framed as pro-developer and potentially cost-reducing, it can also lead to fragmented payment systems, inconsistent user experiences, higher transaction failure rates, and greater security risks.

From my experience advising app-based businesses worldwide, changing core billing infrastructure is not just a technical shift; it affects revenue assurance, dispute resolution, and compliance obligations. Uniform, proven systems often provide stability and trust, especially in a market as diverse and complex as India.

Internationally, the EU’s Digital Markets Act mandates open access to alternative app stores and billing. In the US, Epic Games v. Google, decided in December 2023 and upheld in July 2025, found that Google maintained an illegal monopoly and ordered it to allow third-party app stores and billing. Replicating this outcome in India would not be straightforward.

The US case was based on the Sherman Act, which has a broader definition of monopoly power than India’s narrower, ex-post Competition Act. Indian law requires proof of market harm within the country, not just global control.

Market conditions also differ. In the US, adoption of alternative app stores is higher; in India, low- to mid-range devices, warranty restrictions, and security concerns make sideloading less practical. Payments are more fragmented here, so changes risk disrupting settlements and refunds for small developers.

Past Indian cases, such as the Android OS pre-installation order, show that implementing structural remedies often involves multiple regulators and extended timelines. Indian courts also tend to prefer proportionate, market-specific remedies over disruptive structural changes.

This is why the Supreme Court’s verdict matters beyond the immediate parties. A ruling in Google’s favour would not weaken India’s competition law. Instead, it would signal to both domestic innovators and global investors that this market values predictable, rules-based regulation over case-by-case judicial expansion. In a global investment climate where regulatory stability is as important as market size, that message carries weight.

Case Timeline: From CCI Probe to Supreme Court Hearing

* Nov 2020: CCI starts investigating Google Play Store billing practices.

* Oct 20, 2022: CCI fines Google ₹1,337.76 crore and orders billing changes.

* Mar 2023: NCLAT upholds parts of the CCI ruling, reduces the fine to ₹216 crore, removes “gatekeeper” label.

* Aug 8, 2025: Supreme Court admits cross-appeals from Google, CCI, and ADIF.

* Nov 2025: Supreme Court hearing scheduled to decide the case.

The delay in introducing the Digital Competition Bill is often criticised as hesitation, but it can also be seen as prudence. Prioritising other legislative reforms, conducting sector-specific market studies, and strengthening the institutional capacity of the CCI are all essential before imposing far-reaching, pre-emptive obligations on digital platforms. In my view, rushed regulation, particularly in a sector as dynamic as technology, risks creating compliance burdens that stifle the very innovation India is trying to nurture.

Ultimately, this case presents the Court with an opportunity to establish the framework for how India strikes a balance between market fairness and innovation. Protecting consumer interests is critical, but so is ensuring that regulation does not undermine the infrastructure on which millions of developers, startups, and users depend.

(Rahul Hingmire, Managing Partner, Vis Legis Law Practice.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.