CCI Finds No Abuse Of Dominance By Google In Termination Of Developer's Play Store Accounts

The Competition Commission of India on Tuesday closed an abuse of dominance complaint against Google India Pvt. Ltd. over termination of a developer's Play Store accounts and alleged denial of market access, finding no prima facie contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act.

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag passed the order.

"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.” it stated

The Informant, Zucol Solutions Pvt Ltd, engaged in digital software development and mobile application services, had created a Google Developer Account (GDA) to list its mobile applications on the Google Play Store. In September 2023, Google terminated the Informant's GPA citing policy violations linked to the app “Pobreflix – Series, Movies.”

The informant claimed the app was developed by an external contractual developer and not attributable to it, and that despite requesting action only against the said app, Google terminated the entire account without any reasonable justification.

A second developer account created by the informant in May 2024 to list a single app called “BTHAWK”, was also terminated for being linked to the first account. The informant alleged arbitrary action and denial of market access, particularly as it had been warned against creating new accounts.

Aggrieved, the informant approached the CCI alleging abuse of dominant position and seeking investigation, reinstatement of accounts, and ₹57 crore compensation.

Before the CCI, the informant contended that the alleged violation pertained only to the app “Pobreflix – Series, Movies” and requested Google to take action, if necessary, only against that application without affecting its other compliant apps. It further argued that the said application continues to remain live on Google Play Store under another developer account.

Google, on the other hand, contended that its systems detected malware-related policy violations in the app “Pobreflix – Series, Movies”, warranting enforcement action under its Play Store policies. It stated that the second account was terminated in line with its policies prohibiting developers with prior violations from creating new accounts to bypass enforcement measures.

The Commission identified the relevant market as the “market for app stores for Android OS in India” and observed that Google holds a dominant position in the market.

The Commission noted contradictions in the informant's submissions, as it later admitted that the app was published under its developer account, despite earlier claiming that it did not belong to it, raising doubt on the credibility of its claims.

“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. “ it noted

It further observed:

“The failure of the Informant to identify the individual responsible for development of the impugned application leaves open the crucial issue as to whether the application was developed by a contractual developer or an internal employee.”

The Commission also observed that the Informant suppressed material facts, including reinstatement of its first account by Google, details of the contractual developer, complete communications with Google, existence of a third account and an email to the Ministry of Electronics and IT referring to termination of an internal employee.

“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, having beenneventually terminated as per Relation Ban Policy and has not resubmitted its apps even after the First Account was reinstated by the OP.” it noted

Finding no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission closed the information against Google.