CCI Closes Antitrust Inquiry Into Winzo's Complaint Against Google After Online Real Money Gaming Ban

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Tuesday closed its inquiry into Google following a complaint by Winzo Games Private Limited alleging abuse of dominant position in relation to the distribution and advertising of real-money gaming (RMG) applications.

The Commission took note of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which prohibits online money games and their distribution and advertising. It held that the reliefs sought by Winzo could no longer be granted under the changed legal framework.

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag held:

“The reliefs sought by the Informant can no longer be granted, as they would be contrary to the Online Gaming Act. Continuing the present inquiry would neither restore market access nor improve consumer choice or remedy an ongoing distortion or prevent recurrence of the conduct identified in the Prima Facie Order.”

Winzo operates the online gaming platform 'WinZo', offering over 100 games in five formats to users in more than 12 regional languages.

The company had alleged that Google's Play Store Pilot Programme permitted only Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy applications, while excluding other RMG applications. It also alleged that Google Ads similarly restricted advertisements to these two categories.

Winzo further alleged that Google Pay displayed warnings when users made payments to Winzo to play skill-based games. According to the company, Google had not prescribed any criteria for displaying such warnings.

In its November 2024 prima facie order, the Commission prima facie found Google dominant in three relevant markets and directed the Director General to investigate the alleged conduct.

The markets were the market for licensable operating systems for smart mobile devices in India, the market for app stores for Android smart mobile operating systems in India, and the market for online search advertising services in India.

During the investigation, Google filed commitment proposals to address the Commission's competition concerns. Its Second Revised Commitment Application proposed allowing legally permissible skill-based RMGs on Google Play and permitting their advertisements on Google Ads, subject to certification and other conditions.

The position changed after Parliament enacted the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The Act received Presidential assent on August 22, 2025, and was brought into force from May 1, 2026, along with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026.

The Commission noted that the validity of the Act is under challenge before the Supreme Court, but no stay against its operation had been brought to its notice. The Act, therefore, continued to remain the governing law.

The Commission observed that Section 5 prohibits offering or otherwise engaging in online money games or online money gaming services. Section 6 prohibits advertisements promoting such games, while Section 7 prohibits facilitating financial transactions towards online money gaming services.

These provisions apply without distinguishing between games of skill and games of chance where money or stakes are involved.

The Commission held that the new law had fundamentally altered the legal framework governing RMGs. There was consequently no longer a lawful RMG market on Google Play or Google Ads that could be opened to one category of developers while being denied to another.

It further held that the reliefs originally sought by Winzo could no longer be granted. A direction requiring Google to admit all RMG applications on Google Play or permit their advertisements would run contrary to Sections 5 and 6 of the Online Gaming Act.

The same position applied to the payment-warning issue. Section 7 prohibits the facilitation of payments for online money games across categories. The blanket prohibition on RMGs also means there is no longer a distinction between the RMGs covered by the Pilot Programme and those excluded from it.

The Commission held that the foundation of the direction concerning payment warnings had therefore ceased to exist.

The Commission also noted that Google had closed the RMG Pilot Programme and ceased accepting RMG advertisements from January 2026. These steps had been taken before the Online Gaming Act came into force.

The Commission observed that Google's Second Revised Commitment Application was based on allowing legally permissible skill-based RMGs on Google Play and Google Ads. With the commencement of the Online Gaming Act, that proposal could no longer be implemented.

Google had also sought permission to submit a revised commitment under which it would close the Pilot Programme and prohibit advertisements for all RMGs. The Commission declined this request, observing that these were now requirements of law rather than voluntary measures that could be offered as competition commitments.

The Commission also took note of Winzo's request during the August 25, 2026 hearing to withdraw its Information because of the change in law. It clarified, however, that proceedings under the Competition Act are inquisitorial and in rem, and the Informant is not the dominus litis.

Its withdrawal therefore did not, by itself, require the Commission to close the matter.

Ultimately, the Commission held that the supervening legislation, absence of any lawful or effective remedy, discontinuance of the Pilot Programme and relevant advertisements, the advanced stage of the commitment proceedings, and Winzo's request for withdrawal cumulatively made continuation of the inquiry unnecessary.

Accordingly, the Commission recalled its November 28, 2024, direction under Section 26(1) and closed the inquiry.

The Commission also made clear that it recorded no finding on the merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct.

It further reserved the right to take cognizance of alleged anti-competitive conduct if the relevant provisions of the Online Gaming Act are stayed, struck down, repealed or otherwise cease to operate. The Commission also clarified that the finding was confined to the exceptional facts of the present case.