CCI rejects abuse of dominance complaint against Google over Play Store account termination

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Monday dismissed allegations of abuse of dominance against Alphabet Inc, Google LLC and Google India Private Limited over the termination of a developer account on the Google Play Store [Liberty Infospace Vs Alphabet INC].

The CCI ruled that no prima facie case of contravention under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Liberty Infospace Pvt Ltd, a Kolkata-based MSME that had developed an app called EasyDo Tasks-HRMS Payroll AI.

Liberty alleged that Google unilaterally terminated its Play Store developer account in June 2024 without notice or specific reasons, thereby “annihilating” its business.

Liberty argued that the termination violated Google’s own Developer Distribution Agreement (GPDDA) and enforcement policies, deprived small developers of market access, and constituted abuse of dominance under Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b) of the Act.

It further sought reinstatement of its account, penalties on Google and modification of Google’s developer policies.

In response, Google contended that Liberty’s account had strong connections with a previously terminated “malware seed account” linked to one of Liberty’s contractors, Dakshay Sanghvi, who was also publicly identified as Liberty’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO).

Google argued that its “Relation Ban Policy” was applied consistently across jurisdictions to safeguard user and developer security and that it had no commercial incentive to terminate compliant apps.

The CCI first delineated the relevant market as the “market for app stores for Android OS in India,”

It reiterated its earlier findings in the Alphabet Case and Google Play Case that the Google Play Store enjoys a dominant position due to its indispensability for developers, integration with Android devices and network effects.

However, the Commission found no evidence that Google’s conduct was abusive. It observed that Liberty’s claim of having “no material link” with Sanghvi was contradicted by publicly available information, including Sanghvi’s own appeal filing and his role as Liberty’s CTO.

The Commission also noted that the use of standard contracts like GPDDA and GPDDP is an industry-wide practice and had previously been upheld as non-abusive in its 2022 order against Google.

On Liberty’s criticism of the opaque appeals process, the CCI accepted Google’s explanation that limited disclosure of enforcement signals was necessary to prevent bad-faith actors from “gaming the system.”

“Google’s explanation of its appeals process and the fact that the same redressal process is available across all jurisdictions (with the exception of EU) also appears to meet the test of reasonability. Combination of automation and human effort in decision of such appeals cannot be said to be unfair or discriminatory per se,” the CCI concluded.

Finding that Google’s termination of Liberty’s account was consistent with its policies and supported by evidence of account linkage, the CCI held that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance was made out. Therefore, it closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act, rejected Liberty’s request for interim relief and disposed of its applications.

The Commission also granted Google confidentiality over certain submissions for three years under Regulation 36 of the CCI’s General Regulations, 2024.

[Read Judgment]