After hearing both the sides, CCI came to a prima facie view that Google’s policy of limiting advertisement to selective DFS apps as discriminatory.
“Given Google’s pivotal role in the digital advertising ecosystem, any arbitrary criteria for selecting sub-categories of RMG apps allowed to advertise on its platform can raise significant competition concerns. The selective onboarding of certain app categories (i.e., DFS and Rummy) appears to distort the competitive landscape to the disadvantage of other RMG apps excluded from advertising on the Google platform.”
The Commission also found that Google’s pilot program allowing only DFS and Rummy apps on Play Store denied market access to non-DFS and non-Rummy RMG apps, especially considering Android’s penetration in the Indian mobile phone market.
“By granting preferential treatment to select app categories, Google effectively creates a two-tier market where some developers are accorded superior access and visibility while others are discriminated against and thus, left with a competitive disadvantage. Thus, the Commission is of the prima facie view that such conduct is also in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Such practices also prima facie appear to limit or restrict provision of other RMG apps as well as their technical and scientific development, in violation of Section 4(2)(b) of the Act,” the order stated.
On the issue of warnings shown for payments, the CCI found,
“Given the averments of the Informant that these payment warnings are not displayed in Rummy and DFS applications listed on the Play Store, the Commission deems it appropriate to ascertain whether these payment warnings have any connection to selection of these categories of RMG apps for Google’s RMG Pilot.”
The anti-trust regulator, however, refused to render any findings on sideloading, as the issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.