CCI has dismissed allegations that Google abused its dominant position by terminating developer accounts on the Play Store.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a complaint alleging abuse of dominance by Google India in relation to the termination of developer accounts on the Play Store. The order, passed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, found no prima facie violation of Section 4.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Zucol Solutions, a company engaged in software development and mobile application services. It alleged that Google unfairly terminated its developer accounts and denied it access to the Android app distribution market.
The Commission, comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag, examined whether Google’s conduct amounted to abuse of its dominant position. It noted, “the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against OP in the instant matter.”
Zucol had created a developer account to publish apps on the Play Store. In September 2023, the account was terminated due to alleged violations linked to an app titled “Pobreflix - Series, Movies.” The company argued that the app was developed by an external contractor and requested that action be limited to that application.
Despite this, Google terminated the entire account. A second account created later was also removed due to its link with the first account. Zucol claimed this action was arbitrary and effectively blocked its entry into the market.
Google defended its actions by arguing that its systems detected malware and policy violations. It relied on its Play Store policies, including restrictions on developers attempting to bypass enforcement through new accounts.
The Commission defined the relevant market as the “market for app stores for Android OS in India” and noted that Google holds a dominant position in this space. However, dominance alone does not establish abuse.
The Commission also noted the inconsistency in Zucol’s submissions. While it initially denied ownership of the app, it later admitted that the app was published under its account.
“No name, identity, or documentary evidence of the alleged contractual arrangement have been provided, nor has any timeline been furnished with respect to the commencement or termination of the said engagement, ”
the Commission noted.
The Commission also found that Zucol failed to disclose material facts. These included the reinstatement of its original account, incomplete communication records, and the existence of additional related accounts.
“..the Commission notes that, in the entire sequence of events, the Informant has not been forthcoming with complete information, has attempted to repeatedly open new and related accounts, despite being warned against the same by the OP…,”
it said.
Further, the Commission observed that Google had followed its stated policies. It provided an appeal mechanism and eventually reinstated the original account. However, Zucol did not resubmit its applications even after reinstatement.
Source: BW Legal World
