Google vs CCI: What has been argued in NCLAT so far?

·  It was contended that Google asking Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) to preinstall the entire Google suite (GMS) under the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) was an unfair condition. GMS enables popular Google applications like search, mail, maps, YouTube, etc., to function smoothly.

October 2022

•  On October 20, 2022, CCI, based on its Director General’s (DG) investigation report 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.


• CCI held that Google can neither force OEMs to preinstall its apps, nor restrict users from uninstalling such apps.


• Furthermore, it asked the US-based company not to offer any incentives to OEMs to comply with its conditions.


• CCI asked Google to cease and desist, and pay a penalty Rs 1,338 crore.

• Google appealed to the NCLAT in January but failed to get immediate relief.


• The company then approached the Supreme Court (SC) against the tribunal's decision. While the apex court refused to intervene in the case, it asked NCLAT to decide on the matter by March 31, 2023.


• The NCLAT decided to start hearing the case from February 15.

• On the first day of arguments, Google alleged that the anti-trust regulator's order suffers from “confirmation bias” and is based on a similar order from the European Commission (EC) in 2018.


• According to Google, the CCI’s order failed to demonstrate how the Android ecosystem harms OEMs in the Indian ecosystem.

•  Google argued that the investigation conducted by the CCI, which found the company guilty of abusing its dominant position in the Android ecosystem, was flawed.

•  The tech giant argued that the CCI cannot find fault with it nor penalise it for providing quality products. Google’s lawyer referred to CCI’s own observations, that OEMs are not obliged to pre-install any Google apps on their Android devices, and that lack of alternative essential apps like the Google Play Store erodes the marketability of devices.

• The tech giant said that many OEMs routinely pre-install more non-Google apps than Google apps in their devices. Google argued that the MADA does not prevent OEMs from pre-installing competing apps with similar functionality.

• The tech giant argued that the word ‘Google’ is the most searched term in the rival search engine Bing, owned by Microsoft.


• Google contended that its popularity was due to the effectiveness of its search engine and not because it came pre-installed on Android devices.

• Google argued that OEMs signed agreements with it as they did not intend to develop their own operating systems. The tech giant countered CCI’s observation that Google reduced the ability of and incentive for device manufacturers to develop and sell devices operating on alternative versions of Android by making pre-installation of Google’s apps mandatory.

• Appearing for the CCI on March 2, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman argued briefly. He described Google’s policies in five phrases. He said Google’s monopoly signifies:

2) Digital slavery.

3) Technological captivity.

4) Chokepoint capitalism.

5) Consumer exploitation

March 13: Companies that did not sign Google’s contract went extinct

• The CCI argued that companies that did not sign Google’s contracts to use the Android and went on to develop their own version of the operating system became extinct.


• Reading from the clauses in MADA, RSA and AFA, the ASG argued that Google had total control over every aspect of a device as an Android device can become a ‘qualified device’ only after Google certifies it to be so. He said that a device was not certified as a ‘qualified device’ unless the OEM signed Google’s agreement.


• CCI argued that each of these agreements was linked to another and cannot be signed independently, thereby putting the OEMs in a position where they will have to sign all the agreements for their device to be certified by Google as a fully ‘qualified device.’

• On March 14, CCI argued that there is no technical requirement for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to pre-install the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite.


•  Venkataraman submitted that Google used its dominance in the Android OS market to dominate in other markets as well. According to CCI, Google used its applications and Android OS to indulge in unfair trade practices to generate revenue.


• CCI stated that Google Search is the default search engine for many web browsers, and including its competitor Apple’s Safari. The ASG alleged that the tech giant pays a substantial amount of money to ensure Google Search is the default search engine, despite having a market share of over 90 percent.


• Venkataraman argued that while Google restricts the entry of applications in its Play Store, it permits its own apps to feature in the app stores of other players, such as Apple. According to CCI, Google does this to have an edge over other apps offering similar functionality.

•  Concluding the arguments of the CCI Venkataraman said a market with greater freedom for all players would be in total sync with principles of free competition rather than the 'walled garden' approach of the internet major. CCI submitted that Google has created a digital data hegemony and called for a market space with "free, fair and open competition".


• Venkatraman argued that India is a hub for app developers and startups and with 98 percent market share, it was only duty-bound to see whether Google was indulging in any anti-competitive practices. Once it was found to be indulging in such practices, the regulator merely asked the company to mend its ways and did not penalise it unnecessarily.


• American gaming company Epic games, argued that it has its own app store that it intends to introduce on Android. However, Google’s policy of not letting third-party app distributors in its Play Store denies it access to 98.47 percent of the mobile phone market


• Indus OS, an Indian smartphone application and content discovery platform based on Android argued that it nearly went out of business because of Google’s policies.


• MapmyIndia, an Indian technology company that builds digital map data, was established in 1995 and has been offering its consumers a mapping app since 2004. Representing the company, lawyer Abir Roy argued that Google’s policy ensured that the company was wiped out of the business-to-consumer (B2C) market.