CCI Orders Probe into Google’s Alleged Abuse of Dominance for Denying Market Access to Gaming App Developers

Case Details: Winzo Games (P.) Ltd., In re - [2024] 168 taxmann.com 687 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member
• Abhishek Malhotra, Ms Srishti Gupta, Ms Atmaja Tripathi, Ms Anukriti Trivedi & Ms Nishtha Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Sajan Poovaya, Sr. Adv., Karan Singh Chandhiok, Avinash Amarnath, Rahul Rai, Ms Shivanghi Sukumar, Ms Raksha Agarwal, Palash Maheshwari, Ms Tarun Donadi, Uday Bali, Ms Aditi Gopalakrishnan & Ms Arunima Chatterjee, Representatives of Google, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Informant was a digital gaming and technology company that operated an online digital gaming platform under its trademark and brand name, ‘Winzo’. Google operated ‘Google Play,’ wherein third-party app developers made their apps available to users. The Informant filed instant information and made various allegations against Google, inter alia, in relation to its app store and advertisement policies.

It was noted that where Google updated its Developer Program Policies and Developer Distribution Policy under which it commenced a Pilot Program to test placement of only two types of real-money gaming (RMGs) in Google’s Play Store in India i.e., Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy, such direct access to end-users via dominant Play Store provides a significant competitive edge to DFS and Rummy apps, potentially disadvantaging other RMG applications.

CCI Held

The CCI held that this selective onboarding prima facie distorts the competitive landscape to the disadvantage of apps not covered in the Pilot. Further, Google had restricted its advertisements policy (modified ad policy) by only allowing DFS and Rummy app advertisers to host advertisements using Google Ads.

This selective onboarding of certain app categories (i.e., DFS and Rummy) appeared to distort the competitive landscape to the disadvantage of other RMG apps excluded from advertising on Google. Such practices were in violation of Section 4(2)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002.