Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) And Alphabet Inc. & Others

Competition Commission Of India26 June 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an information raises subject matter similar to that already under investigation by the Director General pursuant to an earlier Section 26(1) order, the Commission may, under the proviso to Section 26(1), club the information with those cases and direct the DG to investigate it together with them and submit a consolidated report. Where the allegations in an information are already before the Commission in ongoing proceedings under Section 42, the Commission will not direct a fresh investigation into those allegations under Section 26(1). The DG's investigation of a clubbed information must remain within the scope fixed by the earlier Section 26(1) order and must not be expanded to cover allegations the Commission has declined to investigate.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA26.06.2024Case No. 18 of 2024In Re:Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) InformantAndAlphabet Inc. Opposite Party No. 1Google LLC Opposite Party No. 2Google India Private Limited Opposite Party No. 3Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 4ORDER

1. The present Information has been filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation (Informant) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) against the Opposite Parties (collectively, “Google”). The Informant is primarily aggrieved by billing policy of Google for in-app purchases and paid apps. The Informant has alleged that Google is abusing its dominant position in the relevant market by imposing its policy and thus, is in violation of various provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

2. The Commission considered the Information in its ordinary meeting held today.

3. In this regard, it is noted that the Commission, vide its order dated 15.03.2024 passed under Section 26(1) of the Act in Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023, has directed the Director General (DG) to investigate certain aspects of Google’s billing policy. The Informant in the present matter has inter alia also raised similar / identical issues. Thus, the subject matter of the present information (i.e., Case No. 18 of 2024) is similar to the subject matter under investigation before the DG in abovementioned cases. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act, the Commission decided to club the present Information with Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023.

Case No. 18 of 2024 4. It is further noted that the Informant has raised certain other issues as well viz. UI/UX guidelines relating to User Choice Billing (UCB) policy of Google, data collection practices of Google, negotiated agreements with app developers, un-availability of UCB for paid apps, anti-steering provisions, consumption-based model, etc. In this regard, it is noted that the Commission is already seized of these issues in the ongoing Section 42 proceedings against Google in Case Nos. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 and 35 of 2021. Therefore, the Commission is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the Informant to order investigation on these allegations.

5. Resultantly, the DG is directed to investigate the present matter also along with Case Nos. 37 of 2022, 17 of 2023 and 27 of 2023 and submit a consolidated investigation report. The DG is further directed to keep the scope of his investigation in terms of the Order of the Commission dated 15.03.2024 without expanding the same based on the other allegations made by the Informant in the present matter as mentioned in para 4 above.

6. The Secretary is directed to send a copy of this order along with the Information and other material available on record to the office of DG forthwith, through e-mail. The Secretary is further directed to serve a copy of this order to the counsel(s) of the parties also, through e-mail.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak Anurag) (Sweta Kakkad) (Anil Agrawal) Member Member Member

Sd/- (Ravneet Kaur) Chairperson

Case No. 18 of 2024

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free