Google versus the antitrust watchdog: the saga so far

The Supreme Court on January 11 agreed to hear Google’s appeal against an order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to stay a Rs. 1,337 crore penalty levied against it by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the antitrust watchdog.

The apex court will hear the appeal on January 16.

CCI imposed a penalty on Google in October 2022 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem.

On October 25, 2022, the watchdog imposed another penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on the tech giant for abusing its dominant position with regard to its Play Store policies in addition to issuing a cease-and-desist order.

While both these orders of the CCI have been challenged before the NCLAT, the tribunal refused to grant Google any interim injunction.

The disputes which began in 2018 have now become a serious point of contention in the Supreme Court

Moneycontrol gives you an overview of the saga so far

CCI’s Android order :

In 2018, Android users alleged before the CCI that Google was abusing its dominant position in the mobile operating system-related markets in contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2022.

The CCI in 2019 expressed a prima facie opinion that mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite under its Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) amounts to the imposition of unfair conditions on device manufacturers. GMS suite includes apps such as Chrome, Gmail, search, and others.

CCI ordered the Director General (DG) to investigate the allegations against Google.

On October 20, 2022, the CCI, based on the investigation report by the DG and other documents filed by both sides, concluded that Google was indeed abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem and ordered the company to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crore.

The CCI held that Google can neither force Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) of smart devices to pre-install its apps nor restrict users from uninstalling such apps. Furthermore, it asked the US-based company not to offer any incentives to OEMs.

Google’s appeal to NCLAT:

Google appealed against this order before the NCLAT, alleging that antitrust investigators copied parts of a European ruling against it for abusing the market dominance of its Android operating system. The US-based company sought a stay of the CCI’s order stating that CCI’s order will stall the Android ecosystem in India while also contending that the order asks the company to change the way Android is marketed in India. The NCLAT declined the company’s appeal to stay the order and posted it for a final hearing in April.

Google has appealed against this order before the Supreme Court. The SC is likely to hear the case on January 16, 2023.

CCI’s Play Store order:

In 2020, based on information filed before the CCI, the competition took a prima facie view that Google violated provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, by imposing Google’s Payment Policy which provides that developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play Store must use Google Play’s payment system. The CCI also directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the allegations.

On October 25, 2022, the CCI concluded that the tech giant has abused its dominant position with regard to its Play Store policies. The competition watchdog also issued a cease-and-desist order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 936.44 crore.

The CCI directed Google not to restrict app developers from using any third-party billing or payment processing services to purchase apps or for in-app billing on Google Play apart from specifying a series of measures to modify the company's app payment policies within three months.

Google’s appeal to NCLAT:

Google appealed against this order before the NCLAT. On January 11, the tribunal refused to stay the CCI’s order and posted the case for a final hearing in April 2023.

The outcome of the hearing in the Supreme Court on January 16 is likely to decide the journey of this litigation going forward.