CCI orders probe into Google’s game download policy for alleged dominance abuse | Company Business News

New Delhi: Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Thursday ordered an investigation into Google’s policies on download of apps from Google Play, its app store, and on advertisements, taking a first impression view on a reference by WinZO Games Pvt Ltd. alleging that the digital economy giant has abused its dominant position.

Google denied the allegations in its response to CCI’s queries, the order issued by the competition watchdog showed.

The mobile gaming platform alleged that Google Play, which hosts third-party app developers, restricts download of apps offering real money games of skill and, therefore, these games have to be downloaded from their websites, known as ‘sideloading.’ The gaming platform alleged that when users access their website for sideloading them on android devices, a disclaimer or malware warning is displayed.

The gaming company claimed this warning tarnishes its reputation, resulting in loss of business. It also alleged that when a user makes a payment for playing skill-based games using Google Pay, another warning is shown. It also alleged that Google allowing seamless download of two real money games on its play store as part of a pilot programme while showing warnings during sideloading other apps on android devices will have the effect of eliminating level-playing field.

The investigation will cover Google LLC., Alphabet Inc., Google India Pvt. Ltd. and Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd., the opposite parties in the case.

Queries emailed to Google on Thursday evening seeking comments for the story remained unanswered till press time.

CCI said in its order that the payment warnings are purportedly presented by Google as part of its compliance with regulatory guidelines issued by authorities such as RBI and National Payments Corp. of India (NPCI). But, given WinZO’s claim that these warnings are not displayed in the two game applications listed on the play store, CCI considered it appropriate to get to the bottom of it. The regulator asked its director general to investigate whether these warnings adversely affect the competitive landscape in online gaming.

“On a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the prima facie view that Google appears to be in violation of” three sections the Competition Act dealing with ‘abuse of dominance’, which “warrants detailed investigation.”

Real money games

Google told CCI that if it offered online real money games on the play store, it may be viewed as an online gaming intermediary. Also, an online gaming intermediary can only offer real money games that have been allowed by a self-regulatory body, which are yet to be designated. Google also told CCI that there is potential for conflict between central and state regulations on online gaming.

“Given this fragmented regulatory framework, allowing all real money games to be distributed on play store would expose Google to legal risk under the gaming laws of some states and the amended IT Rules. It may also pose regulatory risks for users and developers alike,” Google informed CCI, the watchdog said in its order.

Google also told CCI that the legal and regulatory uncertainty in offering real money games in India has influenced its decision not to include India in the list of countries where these are allowed. It ran a short-term pilot project to study the landscape in India, Google said.

Saumya Singh Rathore, co-founder of WinZO Games, told Mint that the CCI’s order was a step towards restoring fairness in the digital ecosystem. “Monopolistic practices stifle innovation and hinder competition, which are the lifeblood of any thriving industry,” said Rathore.

“This decision is a significant move to ensure equitable opportunities for all players, fostering innovation and creating a level-playing field that benefits both businesses and consumers,” Rathore said.

The watchdog also said that nothing in its order amounted to a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the director general should conduct the probe without being swayed by the watchdog’s observations.