The Competition Commission of India (CCI) recently rejected a complaint filed by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) against Google, alleging abuse of dominance through the company's Google Ads policies (ADIF Vs Google)
The CCI invoked Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, 2002 to hold that the issues raised had already been adjudicated in previous decisions and did not warrant re-investigation.
In its order dated August 1, the CCI held:
“Under Section 26(2A) of the Act, the Commission has been bestowed with the discretion to ‘not inquire’ into allegations made in an Information, if ‘substantially the same facts and issues’ have ‘already been decided by the Commission in a previous order’.”
The complaint alleged that Google was abusing its dominant position in the online search advertising market by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions through its Google Ads policies.
Specifically, ADIF pointed to four practices:
Ban on third-party technical support ads, which allegedly had no basis in Indian law.
Restricting ‘Call Ads’ to mobile devices only, allegedly forcing advertisers to use specific Google services.
Non-transparent ad ranking system, which, according to ADIF, operated as a "black box".
Permitting competitors to bid on registered trademarks as keywords, allegedly forcing brand owners to buy their own brand terms.
ADIF argued that these policies were unfair, discriminatory and not backed by reasonable justifications, thereby violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act.
In its reply, Google defended its ad policies as pro-user and pro-competition, but acknowledged that changes had been made over time:
The restriction on third-party tech support ads was introduced globally in 2018 after repeated consumer harm and scams. Google stated it had tested verification programs to allow legitimate providers.
On trademark keyword bidding, Google argued the policy promotes user choice and is applied universally. It pointed to improved mechanisms for brand owners to lodge complaints regarding misuse.
Call Ads and Call Assets, it claimed, are structured to ensure click tracking and fraud prevention, and their platform design does not support phone-number inclusion outside controlled formats.
Google further asserted that no dominant position could be claimed solely on the basis of its general search dominance, as ad placement was determined by multiple auction factors including quality score and bid value.
The Commission relied on its past findings in Matrimony.com and Vishal Gupta cases, wherein it had held:
That Google’s ad policies were “based on defined criteria to ensure consumer safety”;
That advertisers were provided with “sufficient data” to assess ad performance;
And that the keyword bidding policy “enhances user choice” and cannot be treated as anti-competitive.
On the issue of revisiting these rulings, the CCI invoked Section 26(2A) of the Act, introduced via the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023:
“No purpose would be served by inquiring into the same issue yet again without there being any material change in circumstances being pointed out... Re-investigating the same issue again would simply lead to a wastage of time and resources of the public exchequer.”
The CCI rejected ADIF’s contention that its allegations were distinguishable from earlier rulings, holding that the underlying issues were either the same or “substantially the same” and thus barred from fresh inquiry.
The CCI also took note of the Delhi High Court’s decision in DRS Logistics v. Google in which it was held that consumers searching for trademarks may be directed to competitors or reviewers, and that the role of the competition regulator includes evaluating unfair conditions imposed by dominant players.
Nonetheless, the CCI emphasized that competition law functions in rem, not in personam and that its earlier findings bind similar claims unless materially new facts emerge.
“Res judicata is a cornerstone of the legal system, promoting fairness, consistency, and efficiency, by preventing re-litigation of already decided issues,” the CCI stated.
The matter was accordingly closed under Section 26(2A), with directions issued to notify both parties.
[Read Judgment]