- 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 Tells NCLAT, Google’s Play Store Policies Impede Competition
CCI Tells NCLAT, Google’s Play Store Policies Impede Competition
The regulator is assessing whether the so-called user choice billing system is in sync with the rules
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has submitted before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that Google's 10-30 percent service fee on app payments via Play Store hinders app developers' ability to invest in technology and service improvements.
The competition watchdog argued after Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, appealed against an earlier order of the CCI. The latter imposed Rs.936-crore on the firm in October 2022 for alleged anti-competitive practices in its Play Store policy.
The CCI's counsel said the imposition of Google's mandatory Play Billing System (PBS) reduced developers' choices and impeded competition.
The Play Store policy requires app developers to use PBS not only for receiving payments for buying apps and digital products like audio, video and games, but also for certain in-app purchases.
Following the CCI order, Google had introduced an alternative billing system, but the fee remained high.
The counsel for the CCI explained, "If developers are given a choice to use other payment processors, they would be charged around 1 percent, leaving them with more money to invest in producing better content and developing better technology.”
He added that the test for establishing abuse of dominance in a market was not that some entity went out of business due to a dominant player's action, but whether there was an erosion of competition due to its conduct and policies.
"The test is not that 'show me the effect’, it is 'show me that some enterprise has not been allowed to continue or conduct the business,’” the counsel stressed.