- 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 investigates Google’s Bias In Real Money Gaming App Listings
CCI investigates Google’s bias in real money gaming app listings
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered its investigation arm’s Director General (DG) to investigate Google and its affiliates for listing real-money gaming apps on the Play Store.
The fair-trade watchdog observed that the search engine giant violated Section 4 of the Competition Act by favoring certain apps and limiting market access for others, thereby, abusing its dominant market position.
The CCI order resulted after a complaint by WinZo Games Pvt Ltd, a digital gaming platform, alleging that the tech giant tried to stifle competition in Real Money Gaming (RMG) and online advertisement space.
It accused that Google's discriminatory policies were enforced through its payment platform Google Pay, and ad service Google Ads. The policies restricted market access and favored specific gaming categories, creating an unequal playing field.
Google's pilot program, launched in September 2022, allowed only Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy apps to be hosted on the Play Store – a decision that was arbitrary and discriminatory.
In its 24 page-order, the CCI stated, “By blocking access to an important advertising channel, Google appears to deny market visibility of such RMG apps, thereby prima facie resulting in denial of market access for such RMG apps in violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act. This is discriminatory and in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i).”
The Commission observed that Google's selective approach to RMGs created a ‘two-tier market’, unfairly benefiting some app developers while disadvantaging others. It dominated the licensing operating systems for smart mobile devices, app stores for Android devices, and online search advertising.
The CCI added, "The long duration of Google's pilot program risks perpetuating the advantages conferred upon selected participants, such as DFS and Rummy apps. This temporal extension amplifies the anti-competitive effects by ensuring these apps continue to enjoy preferential access and visibility, which other competitors are denied.”
However, Google justified its actions citing legal, regulatory, and safety considerations. It argued that the fragmented regulatory framework for RMGs in India necessitated caution. Defending the pilot program, it stated that it was designed to understand the RMG landscape in India.
It added that the inclusion of DFS and Rummy was based on Indian courts' legal recognition of their skill-based games. The extended pilot was a cautious approach to navigating evolving regulatory landscapes.
Clarifying its stand on advertisements, Google maintained that its policies were consistent and denied allegations of selective enforcement. It stated that all advertisements were subject to uniform review for policy compliance.
In October 2022, the Commission imposed Rs.2,274 crore on Google in two cases of abuse of dominance in the Android ecosystem and Play Store policies. Google had challenged the rulings.