Supreme Court admits Google, CCI plea against NCLAT order on Android dominance

The technology giant faced allegations of abuse of dominance for enforcing unfair Play Store policies and favouring its own payments app, Google Pay.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar scheduled the matter for hearing in November.

What is the case about?

The case stems from a CCI probe that began in November 2020 regarding Google’s billing practices on the Play Store. In October 2022, the CCI found that Google abused its dominant market position by requiring the use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for app transactions while exempting its own apps, such as YouTube, from comparable commission requirements.

A fine of ₹936.44 crore was imposed on Google and it was ordered to stop anti-competitive practices, such as permitting third-party billing and promoting data transparency, the report said.

What are the allegations against Google?

On March 28, the NCLAT confirmed several key findings of the probe. It found that Google used its dominance in two key markets, including licensable smartphone operating systems and Android app stores, to promote Google Pay, which breaches Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, it added.

However, the NCLAT overturned CCI’s findings regarding the denial of market access and restriction on innovation. It observed that Google’s billing services represented less than 1% of total UPI transactions and concluded that there was not enough evidence of foreclosure or hindrance to technical development.

Notably, the NCLAT reversed preventive orders issued by the CCI, including those related to Google’s classification as a “gatekeeper”.

The ₹936.44 crore fine was revised. The NCLAT determined that the CCI made a mistake by applying the penalty to Google’s entire global turnover. Instead, it was limited to revenues from the Play Store, lowering the fine to ₹216.69 crore.

On May 1, the NCLAT clarified and reinstated two directives, one requiring Google to disclose its data policies and another prohibiting it from using billing data for competitive gain. Google’s objection, claiming this was a review, was denied, leading it to appeal to the Supreme Court.