Jump to content

Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC and Ors.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curb Safe Charmer (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 20 March 2021 (cleanup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Google India Private Limited.
CourtCompetition Commission of India
Decided26/04/2019
Citationhttps://cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/39-of-2018.pdf
Holding
Prima Facie opinion:

Mandatory Pre-installation of entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite under MADA amounts to imposition of unfair condition on the device manufacturers. Leveraging of Google's dominance in Google Play store to protect relevant markets suck as online general search in contravention of Section 4 (2) (e) of the Competition Act 2002.

The impugned conduct of Google may help perpetuate its dominance in the online search market while resulting in denial of market access for competing search apps in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Act.

Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Google India Private Limited was a 2019 court case in which Google LLC and Google India Private Limited were accused of abuse of dominance in the Android operating system in India.[1][2][3][4]

The Competition Commission of India found that Google abused its dominant position by requiring device manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps to adhere to a compatibility standard (Google Android).[5][6] Case No. 39 of 2018 Unclassified.[7][8]

Plaintiffs

Aaqib Javeed was a law student at the University of Kashmir. In 2018 he was briefly an intern with the Competition Commission of India, New Delhi. He was due to graduate from the University of Kashmir in 2019.[9]

Allegations

Mobile application distribution agreements (MADAs) were compulsory tie-in agreements where Google required Android original equipment manufacturers to pre-install the entire Google mobile services (GMS) suite. Once they had signed the agreement, device manufacturers cannot pick and choose which GMS apps to pre-install. While signing a MADA was optional, OEMs are required to pre-install Google’s own applications in order to get any part of GMS such as Google applications like Google Maps, Gmail and YouTube. It was argued that this hinders the development of rival applications.[10]

Before signing a MADA, OEMs had to enter into an anti-fragmentation agreement (‘AFA’) with Google, which prevented them from developing and marketing an Android fork on other devices. This restricted access to potentially superior versions of Android OS.

Outcome

The Competition Commission of India ordered an investigation into abuse of dominance allegations against Google:[11][12]

"In this regard, the Commission is of the prima facie opinion that mandatory pre installation of entire Google Mobile Services]] suite under MADA amounts to imposition of unfair condition on the device manufacturers and thereby in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It also amounts to prima facie leveraging of Google's dominance in Play Store to protect the relevant market such as online general search in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Mobile search has emerged as a key gateway for users to access information and Android is a key distribution channel for mobile search engine. Search engine exhibit data-driven scale effects. Improvements in search algorithm require sufficient volume of data, which, in turn, needs sufficient volume of queries from users who are increasingly resorting to mobile search. Thus, the impugned conduct of Google may help perpetuate its dominance in the online search market while resulting in denial of market access for competing search apps in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. These aspects warrant a detailed investigation. The plea of Google that MADA pre installation conditions are not exclusive or exclusionary, can also be appropriately examined during investigation."[13]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Antitrust Enforcement In Digital Markets: CCI Experience" (PDF). COMPETITION COOPERATION EU ASIA Partnership.: 10/27 – via https://competitioncooperation.eu. {{cite journal}}: External link in |via= (help)
  2. ^ Kalra, Aditya. "India's latest Google probe sparked by junior antitrust researchers | The Guardian". www.theguardian.pe.ca. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  3. ^ Bureau, Editorial (2019-07-09). "India's latest Google probe sparked by junior antitrust researchers". British Herald. Retrieved 2021-03-17. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ "Inter Alia Special Edition- Competition Law - August 2019 | Lexology". www.lexology.com. Retrieved 2021-03-19.
  5. ^ "MORNING NEWS CALL Powered by Reuters" (PDF). INDIAN EDITION JULY 9, 2019: 1/2 – via Thomson Reuters.
  6. ^ Shroff, Pallavi; Handoll, John; Satarawala Chopra, Naval; Shroff Chopra, Shweta; Singh Sandhu, Harman; Brar, Manika; Mehra, Aparna; Chhabra, Gauri; Verma, Yaman; Arora, Rohan (2019-04-16). "The Indian Competition Authority finds that a company abused its dominant position by requiring device manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps to adhere to a compatibility standard (Google Android)". e-Competitions Bulletin (April 2019). ISSN 2116-0201.
  7. ^ "ABUSE OF DOMINANCE IN DIGITAL MARKETS – CONTRIBUTION FROM INDIA". OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2020): 5/7 – via OECD.
  8. ^ "Morning News Call - India, July 9". Reuters. 2019-07-09. Retrieved 2021-03-17. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  9. ^ "India's latest Google probe sparked by junior antitrust researchers". ddnews.gov.in. Retrieved 2021-03-19.
  10. ^ "CCI orders investigation into abuse of dominance allegations against Google". AZB & Partners. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  11. ^ "Inter Alia Special Edition- Competition Law - August 2019". Lexology. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  12. ^ "CCI Orders Investigation Into Abuse Of Dominance Allegations Against Google - Anti-trust/Competition Law - India". www.mondaq.com. Retrieved 2021-03-19.
  13. ^ "Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors" (PDF). The Competition Commission of India: 14 – via https://www.cci.gov.in. {{cite journal}}: External link in |via= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umar_Javeed,_Sukarma_Thapar,_Aaqib_Javeed_vs._Google_LLC_and_Ors.&oldid=1013281963"