The Competition Commission of India last week assured the Karnataka High Court that no action will be taken against Google India Pvt. till the next hearing on Jan. 5 regarding a probe initiated by the regulator into the tech giant’s Play store rules.
Last year, the CCI had found prima facie merit in allegations by Alliance of Digital India Foundation, a startup industry body, that Google is abusing its dominant position in the UPI payments market. The regulator had also expressed concern over the pre-installation and prominence of Google Pay on Android smartphones. The CCI directed its investigation wing to examine whether Google’s conduct of mandating use of its payments system was anti-competitive.
While the CCI’s investigation was ongoing, ADIF filed additional information detailing names of app developers who were affected by Google’s Play store rules. CCI directed ADIF to redact the names of the app developers from its application before forwarding a copy to Google.
Google, however, wanted to know the names of the affected app developers and moved an application in this regard. On Dec. 14, the regulator passed an order refusing this request, stating that it was satisfied with ADIF’s ‘redacted’ version. The CCI order also directed Google to file a response to the application by Dec. 31.
Against this CCI order, Google India moved the high court.
Google told the court that it had requested the CCI to establish a confidentiality ring and share ADIF’s non-confidential version i.e., the app developers/start-ups’ identities. This would allow the company to understand the claims against it. It also sought additional time to respond to ADIF’s allegations.
Google contended that the commission’s order violates principles of natural justice. It constrains the company to defend ADIF’s application while simultaneously denying the right to know the identity of the parties that it has allegedly harmed.
Appearing for Google India, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium told the court that since the company received a redacted version of the application, it is not able to understand the claims against it. Lack of information would affect Google’s defence and CCI has sought a response by Dec. 31, Subramanium added.
“If the response is not filed within the stipulated date, then CCI would proceed to hear the case based on the material available.”
In response, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman submitted that no information has been withheld.
By not giving the app developers names, Google has no difficulty in replying to the application, he further said.
It’s the CCI’s duty to give mandatory protection to the informants, which is why their details are withheld. Also, if this information is provided, Google will “hunt them down“, Venkataraman submitted.
Venkataraman also pressed the court to not grant an interim relief.
The bench proceeded to note CCI’s undertaking that it will not act against Google and pushed the matter to Jan. 5.
“The unanimous submission is that there will be no precipitation in the matter till the next date of hearing.”