- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
CCI Takes NCLAT's ₹1,338 Crore Fine Order on Google to the Supreme Court of India
CCI Takes NCLAT's ₹1,338 Crore Fine Order on Google to the Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court of India (SC) is currently reviewing a challenge from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against a decision made by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
The NCLAT had confirmed a fine of ₹1,338 crore imposed on Google, alleging that the company had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour within the Android ecosystem. While upholding the fine, the NCLAT did overturn four of the 10 directives issued to Google, which required the company to modify its business practices.
As reported by the Economic Times on June 15, the CCI has lodged a challenge against a specific directive issued by the NCLAT. This directive pertains to the requirement for the CCI to conduct an "effect analysis" under Section 4 of the Competition Act in order to establish the abuse of dominance. The effect analysis evaluates whether the conduct in question is anti-competitive or not.
In alignment with Google's argument, the appellate tribunal concurred that Section 4 explicitly excludes discriminatory conditions or prices that could be used for competitive purposes. Furthermore, the tribunal emphasised that the primary objective of competition law is to deter practices that detrimentally impact competition.
Google contended that for the conduct of a dominant company to be considered abusive, it must demonstrate anti-competitive effects, advocating for the necessity of conducting an effect analysis. However, the CCI held a differing perspective and disagreed with Google's viewpoint on this matter.
As of now, Google has not lodged a challenge against the findings of the NCLAT. To ensure that they are kept informed and no orders are passed without their knowledge, Google, along with other relevant parties, has filed caveats in the SC. This precautionary measure helps to safeguard their interests and ensures that they are allowed to present their case before any decision is made.
In October 2022, the CCI issued an order to Google, directing the company to provide app developers with the choice to utilise third-party billing or payment processing services for both app and in-app purchases. Additionally, the CCI imposed a penalty on the tech giant as part of its order.
In March, the NCLAT granted Google a 30-day period to implement the remaining measures prescribed by the CCI, excluding the four directives that were previously set aside.
The appellate tribunal rejected the CCI’s directive to Google, which prohibited the denial of access to its Play services application programming interface (API) in a manner that could disadvantage other equipment manufacturers, application developers, and competitors.
Additionally, the appellate tribunal deemed another directive from the CCI as "unsustainable." This directive pertained to allowing application store developers to distribute their app stores through Google's Play Store.