CCI Dismisses Abuse Of Dominance Complaint Against Google Over Play Store Ban

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Monday dismissed a complaint filed by Liberty Infospace Pvt. Ltd. against Google, ruling that the tech giant did not abuse its dominant position by terminating the company's developer account on the Google Play Store.

The Commission found no prima facie violation under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and closed the case without directing an investigation.

The form-member coram of the commission, comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, Deepak Anurag found Google's actions reasonable, both in terminating the developer account and in handling the appeals process. In its order, the Commission held,

“Therefore, in the case of termination of the Informant's developer account and in the disposal of appeals by Google against the same, there appears to be no abusive or discriminatory conduct indulged into by Google.”

It further stated, “In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out.”

The case arose after Liberty Infospace, a registered Indian MSME, alleged that Google abruptly terminated its developer account on June 26, 2024, without warning. The termination removed Liberty's HRMS app, EasyDo Tasks-HRMS Payroll AI, from the Play Store, where it had over 16,000 downloads.

Google cited prior violations by associated previously terminated Google Play Developer Accounts, but did not provide detailed reasons.

Liberty denied having any association with the account in question, allegedly belonging to one Dakshay Sanghvi, a developer previously hired through a third-party contractor. The Informant claimed that the enforcement and appeal process lacked transparency and fairness, and that Google's policies, including the undefined term “related account,” amounted to abuse of dominance and denial of market access under Section 4 of the Act. It also alleged discrimination, citing additional redressal mechanisms available to EU developers under the Digital Services Act.

The Commission while reaffirming that Google holds a dominant position in this market however, found no evidence that Google had abused this dominance. On the key factual claim that Liberty had no connection with Sanghvi, the Commission noted that public sources showed him describing himself as Liberty's Chief Technology Officer since March 2024. He was also listed on the company's app website and filed appeals on Liberty's behalf using his personal email ID. The Commission concluded that Liberty's claim of having no relation with Sanghvi “appears to be factually incorrect.”

The CCI also accepted Google's rationale for not disclosing detailed enforcement mechanisms, noting that transparency must be balanced against the risk of bad actors gaming the system.

It stated, “Google's explanation in respect of its 'relational ban policy', reasons behind not giving detailed disclosures, rationale for termination, lacking incentive to terminate authentic apps appear to be reasonable.”

On the appeals process, the Commission found that the combination of automation and human review did not by itself make the system unfair.

“Combination of automation and human effort in decision of such appeals cannot be said to be unfair or discriminatory per se. Nonetheless, in the case of the Informant, Google has detailed the human intervention undertaken at the appellate stage. Therefore, in the case of termination of the Informant's developer account and in the disposal of appeals by Google against the same, there appears to be no abusive or discriminatory conduct indulged into by Google.,” it observed.

The terms of the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement (GPDDA), which Liberty had challenged as one-sided and unfair, were found to be standard-form contracts applied uniformly across developers.

The Commission noted that Clause 10.3 of the agreement permits immediate termination in cases of serious violations, including those involving associated accounts.

Rejecting the Informant's plea for interim relief, the Commission concluded that there was no merit in the allegation of discriminatory or abusive conduct. The case was accordingly dismissed under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Case Name: Liberty Infospace Pvt Ltd. v Alphabet Inc

Click Here To Read/Download Order