Google’s Play Store account termination ruled fair by Competition Commission of India

Google’s Play Store account termination ruled fair by Competition Commission of India

Competition Commission of India dismisses Liberty Infospace complaint against Google for developer account termination

The Competition Commission of India has dismissed a complaint filed by Liberty Infospace Pvt Ltd. against tech giant Google, ruling that the company did not abuse its dominant position by terminating Liberty’s developer account on the Google Play Store. In this comprehensive decision, the CCI concluded that there was no prima facie violation of the Competition Act, 2002, and closed the case without ordering a detailed investigation. The ruling highlights the Commission’s stance on how Google’s policies and actions in this case were not found to be unfair or discriminatory under Indian competition law.

Background of the Case: Liberty Infospace vs. Google

The case stems from a complaint filed by Liberty Infospace, a registered Indian MSME, against Google, following the termination of Liberty's developer account on the Google Play Store. On June 26, 2024, Google took down Liberty’s HRMS app, EasyDo Tasks-HRMS Payroll AI, which had over 16,000 downloads, citing violations linked to a previously terminated developer account. Liberty argued that it was not associated with the account in question, allegedly owned by one Dakshay Sanghvi, a developer previously contracted by Liberty through a third party.

Liberty further claimed that the termination of its developer account was abrupt and lacked transparency, alleging that Google’s policies, including the vague term “related account,” amounted to abuse of dominance. The company also argued that it was denied fair redressal mechanisms, highlighting that developers in the European Union had access to more robust mechanisms under the Digital Services Act.

CCI’s Findings: No Evidence of Abuse of Dominance

In its order, the CCI examined whether Google’s actions violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, which addresses the abuse of a dominant market position. The Commission recognized that Google holds a dominant position in the mobile operating system and app distribution markets, but it found no evidence of abusive behaviour in this instance.

The Commission noted that Liberty's claim of having no connection with Dakshay Sanghvi appeared to be factually incorrect. Public sources showed that Sanghvi was listed as Liberty’s Chief Technology Officer from March 2024, and he had also filed appeals on behalf of Liberty using his personal email ID. Given these facts, the CCI found that Liberty’s allegations about the lack of connection to Sanghvi were inconsistent with the evidence.

Google's Policy and Transparency

Google's decision to terminate Liberty's account was based on previous violations by other developer accounts linked to Sanghvi. However, the specifics of these violations were not disclosed to Liberty. The CCI, while recognizing the potential importance of transparency, upheld Google’s rationale for not disclosing detailed reasons behind its enforcement actions. The Commission agreed with Google that too much disclosure could create opportunities for bad actors to exploit the system.

In terms of the appeals process, the CCI found that a combination of automation and human review did not make the system inherently unfair or discriminatory. Google had explained that human intervention was incorporated at the appellate stage, providing a safeguard to ensure that automated decisions were reviewed appropriately.

Liberty’s Allegations and the GPDDA

Liberty had also contested the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, arguing that it was one-sided and unfair. The Commission noted, however, that the terms of the GPDDA were standard-form contracts applied uniformly across developers. Clause 10.3 of the agreement permits immediate termination in cases of serious violations, including issues related to associated accounts, which was the basis of the termination in Liberty’s case.

Dismissal of the Complaint

The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case for the contravention of the Competition Act, 2002, and dismissed the complaint. Liberty’s plea for interim relief was also rejected, with the CCI finding no merit in the allegations of discriminatory or abusive conduct by Google.

This decision underscores the need for clear evidence when making claims of abuse of dominance, particularly in highly regulated markets like app distribution. It also reaffirms that dominant companies like Google are within their rights to enforce policies that protect the integrity of their platforms, provided these actions are not found to be discriminatory or anti-competitive.

Implications for Developers and Market Regulators

While the ruling may be seen as a victory for Google, it highlights the complexities involved in the regulation of dominant digital platforms. For developers, this case serves as a reminder to ensure compliance with platform policies and to be transparent in their operations. Moreover, market regulators may need to continue refining the framework around digital market dominance, particularly in rapidly evolving sectors such as app stores and mobile ecosystems.

This case also reinforces the importance of balancing market access with the protection of consumers and the integrity of online platforms, particularly in the context of rapidly growing markets like India.

The CCI’s dismissal of Liberty Infospace’s complaint against Google serves as an important benchmark for competition law enforcement in India. By ruling in favour of Google, the Commission sent a clear message that it will require robust evidence to substantiate claims of anti-competitive behaviour. As digital markets continue to grow in India, this ruling will likely shape the future of regulatory approaches to big tech companies operating in the country.