- 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
Google to Comply with CCI's Directions for Android
Google to Comply with CCI's Directions for Android
Google recently announced that it is willing to comply with the Competition Commission of India (in short CCI)'s recent directions for Android, stating that it will offer Android users in India to use third-party billing options staring from February.
This will enable Indian users to have the option to choose their default search engine via choice screen that will soon start to appear when a user sets up a new Android smartphone or tablet in the country, the tech giant said in a statement.
According to Google's statement, "the CCI's recent directives for Android and Play require us to make significant changes for India, and we have informed the CCI of how we will be complying with their directives."
For pre-installation the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) will now be able to license individual Google apps on their devices. "We're updating the Android compatibility requirements to introduce changes for partners to build non-compatible or forked variants," stated Google.
Developers can offer users alternative billing system which allows user choice billing along side Google Play's billing system when purchasing in-app digital content.
These changes come in effect after the Supreme Court stated that the findings by the CCI cannot be said to be "without jurisdiction or with manifest error" and affirmed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (in short NCLAT)'s order, while rejecting to grant interim relief to Google.
The Apex Court had ordered NCLAT to dispose of Google's appeal by 31st March and afforded Google seven days to deposit ten per cent of the Rs. 1,337.76 crore penalty imposed by the CCI.
Erstwhile, it was alleged by Google that the CCI had copy-pasted parts of European Court order without examining associated evidence in India.
The CCI also imposed a penalty of Rs. 936.44 crore on Google in a separate case for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies.