Report Wire

Tag: Competition Commission of India

  • SC rejects Google plea to remain order on ₹1,337 cr penalty

    A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud stated: “Findings of CCI (Competition Commission of India) can’t be stated to be with out jurisdiction or affected by manifest error,” and shunned making any observations on the arguments made by CCI and different app producers, realizing that it may influence the proceedings filed by Google earlier than the NCLAT in its attraction towards the CCI’s 20 October order.

    The bench allowed Google to method NCLAT with this order in three days. However, it expedited the listening to by requesting the tribunal to determine the matter earlier than 31 March. As Google was to adjust to the CCI order on a set of instructions by 19 January, the courtroom prolonged the time for compliance by every week.

    The courtroom’s order got here regardless of Google agreeing to adjust to the CCI order partially. The courtroom requested Google on earlier events whether or not it was keen to have the identical set of compliance for the Indian market as directed by the European Commission (EC) in July 2018 on a discovering of dominance by Google within the Android ecosystem.

    Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Google, instructed the courtroom that with out prejudice to its attraction in NCLAT, the corporate was keen to adjust to 4 elements of the 20 October order. This included unbundling of search and Chrome apps as additionally Chrome from Search app from the bouquet of pre-loaded apps provided to Android gadget producers, exclusivity to Google search providers, and permitting smartphone and pill makers to provide with out Google’s proprietary functions of Play and Search pre-installed.

    Singhvi sought 45 days to adjust to these instructions. In addition, he additionally agreed to supply a alternative display for purchasers, permitting them to decide on their default search engine through the preliminary gadget setup. However, as this required structural change, Singhvi provided to get it completed in 4 months, whilst in Europe, the corporate was given 9 months to implement the identical.

    The courtroom instructed Singhvi, “We can’t lose sight of the peculiarity of the Indian market – its width, depth and penetration within the international market.” On comparing with the level-playing field in Europe, the bench added, “The European Union can be a benchmark for us so that we don’t fall behind. But we can certainly move ahead of them. Look at the nature of our market and EU market.”

    Google claimed that its presence within the Indian market had nothing to do with dominance however excellence. “If individuals select Google, this isn’t dominance however excellence. I’m the market chief by my excellence, and this courtroom promotes excellence in each commerce.” Underscoring the significance of the Android system behind the smartphone increase in India, he defined the extent of Google’s protection throughout 500 million units throughout 1500 Android fashions.

    The courtroom stated, “This knowledge goes towards your submission. If you might have such market penetration, once you necessitate taking your bouquet, you compromise the open platform and militate towards the Android ecosystem. It additionally impacts the selection obtainable to customers.”

    Additional solicitor general (ASG) N. Venkatraman, appearing for CCI, said that the 20 October ruling came after four years of enquiry which found that the policies of Google were anti-competitive, restricting the choice of consumers and manufacturers as well. He objected to the stay of the CCI direction and said that the company had complied with similar directions in the EU within three months and was seeking a stay from adopting the same course of action in India.

    Figures provided by CCI showed that in 2018, Google was the operating system of over 98% of smartphones, while its App store for Android smartphones had 100% dominance due to pre-installation. In the general web search, Google has had 98% dominance in India since 2009, and in the online video hosting platform, Google-run YouTube had 88% coverage.

    ASG explained to the Court that Google gets the upper hand through the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA), which is not a voluntary choice but a compulsive one for device manufacturers. This mandates the pre-installation of 11 apps called Google mobile services (GMS) as a bundle, prohibits the Installation or uninstallation of individual GMS apps, and mandates premium placement of these apps on the mobile/tablet screen. “All this translates into a statutory infraction. It results in a status quo bias as nobody can break this necklace which is a chain of apps that mutually attract each other,” CCI submitted.

    The fee additional acknowledged that anti-competitiveness was the aim set by India for 2026 the place it seeks to draw international gamers within the subject of electronics and maintain native producers because the intention is to advertise public monopoly and never a personal monopoly. “Competition legislation democratizes. Any keep now shall be proven by them until this courtroom lastly decides on the matter,” Venkataraman said.

    While Google argued that non-grant of stay will lead to irreversible results as software proprietary once given to all cannot come back. The company further claimed that this would also result in the prices of Android devices shooting up. The CCI negated these submissions.

    Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Jayant Mehta, appearing for private app manufacturers, told the court that the directions by CCI are in the realm of technology which can be enabled or disabled at any time and hence there is no fear of irreversibility. Rohatgi said, “There is no reason for the petitioner to treat this country and its laws as third world.”

    The courtroom refused to determine on the rival claims stating, “Any expression of opinion by this Court on deserves will have an effect on the case earlier than NCLAT.” It went on to add, “Since the appellant (Google) are pursuing their remedy in NCLAT, the time for compliance with the order of CCI is extended by a period of one week.”

    Catch all of the Technology News and Updates on Live Mint.
    Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    More
    Less

  • Google challenges Android antitrust ruling in court docket

    Google has filed a authorized problem in Supreme Court to dam a ruling by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that can power the corporate to alter the way it markets its Android platform in India, information company Reuters reported.

    Antitrust watchdog CCI fined the Alphabet Inc unit $161 million for exploiting its dominant place out there for Android which powers 97% of smartphones in India. Google sees the trouble to problem CCI within the Supreme Court as its final and greatest hope at stopping the earlier order from impacting its enterprise.

    The search engine large is frightened in regards to the Indian determination because the cures ordered are seen as extra sweeping than the European Commission’s landmark 2018 ruling for imposing illegal restrictions on Android cell system makers.

    The problem comes after Google suffered a setback on Wednesday when an appeals tribunal rejected its request to dam the antitrust ruling.

    Google argued the CCI’s investigation unit “copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India”.

    “There are more than 50 instances of copypasting”, in some instances “word-for-word”, and the watchdog erroneously dismissed the difficulty, Google stated in its submitting which isn’t public however has been reviewed by Reuters.

    “The Commission failed to conduct an impartial, balanced, and legally sound investigation … Google’s mobile app distribution practices are pro-competitive and not unfair/ exclusionary.”

    Google has requested the tribunal to quash the CCI’s order, and the case is prone to be heard this week.

    The CCI dominated in October that Google’s licensing of its Play Store “shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing” Google search companies, the Chrome browser, YouTube, or another Google functions.

    In its attraction, Google alleges the CCI solely discovered antitrust infringements associated to the Google search app, Chrome browser, and YouTube, however its order “extends beyond” that.

    Separately, Google has additionally appealed towards one other Indian antitrust determination the place it was fined $113 million for proscribing the usage of third-party billing or cost processing companies in India. The attraction is but to be heard.

    Catch all of the Technology News and Updates on Live Mint.
    Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.

    More
    Less

  • Remain dedicated, evaluating subsequent steps: Google on Rs 936-cr CCI tremendous

    Stating that it stays dedicated to its customers and builders, Google India on Wednesday stated that it’s reviewing the Competition Commission of India’s order to guage the following steps.

    “Indian developers have benefited from the technology, security, consumer protections, and unrivaled choice and flexibility that Android and Google Play provide. And by keeping costs low, our model has powered India’s digital transformation and expanded access to hundreds of millions of Indians,” Google India stated in a press release.

    The CCI imposed a complete tremendous of Rs 2,274 crore on Google in a span of final 5 days. On Tuesday, it slapped a contemporary Rs 936-crore tremendous on the corporate for abusing its dominant market place on its Android cellular app retailer and ordered it to not stop app builders from utilizing third-party billing or cost processing providers in India.

    Last week on Thursday, it had slapped a tremendous of Rs 1,338 crore on the tech main for abusing the dominant place of its Android smartphone working system.

    Last week, Google stated that Android has created extra alternative for everybody and helps 1000’s of profitable companies in India and all over the world.

    “The CCI’s decision is a major setback for Indian consumers and businesses, opening serious security risks for Indians who trust Android’s security features, and raising the cost of mobile devices for Indians,” a Google spokesperson stated, including that the corporate will overview the choice to guage subsequent steps.

    Appeals in opposition to CCI orders could be filed within the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). FE

  • CCI has been pragmatic in levying, quantifying penalties: Chairperson Ashok Kumar Gupta

    Competition Commission Chairperson Ashok Kumar Gupta on Tuesday stated the regulator has been pragmatic in levying and quantifying penalties because the enforcement actions are usually not divorced from enterprise and financial realities.

    Gupta, who will likely be demitting workplace on Tuesday after being on the helm of the watchdog for almost 4 years, additionally stated that the feasibility of an ex-ante framework ought to be thought of for successfully regulating digital markets.

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been taking steps to make sure honest competitors within the digital market and final Thursday, it handed a serious order towards Google for the abuse of dominance in a number of markets in relation to Android cell units.

    When requested about Google’s feedback on the ruling associated to the Android matter, the chairperson declined to remark.

    Last Wednesday, the watchdog slapped penalties totalling Rs 392 crore on MakeMyTrip, Goibibo and OYO for unfair enterprise practices.

    “We, at CCI, are presently addressing competitors issues in digital markets by our anti-trust enforcement measures, that are basically ex-post.

    “However, the need and rationale for ex-ante regulation to supplement these efforts of CCI cannot be over-emphasised in view of the experience gained and difficulties faced by CCI in effecting timely market correction in digital markets,” Gupta informed PTI in an interview.

    He additionally emphasised that there’s a must intently contemplate the feasibility of an ex-ante framework to deal with home wants for successfully regulating digital markets, which can complement the ex-post enforcement actions of CCI.

    “Considering that India has the world’s third-largest startup ecosystem with tech-based startup ecosystem permeating across sectors, it would be entirely appropriate and timely that we, in India, also stay aligned with the frameworks, which are being evolved by our counterparts in regulating digital markets through ex-ante measures lest we remain behind the curve,” he famous.

    To a question about competitors regulation jurisprudence within the nation with respect to large tech gamers, the CCI chief stated the regulator is at a really crucial second within the evolution of competitors regulation jurisprudence in India.

    “Going forward, I believe, as the issues posed are similar, competition agencies across the globe need to collaborate to exchange learnings and experiences. This will provide certainty to the markets,” he stated.

    Over the yr, CCI has been taking a lightweight strategy in the direction of MSMEs and leniency with respect to cartel circumstances the place there are proactive disclosures by the entities involved.

    “We have been pragmatic in levying and quantifying penalties as our enforcement actions are not divorced from business and economic realities,” Gupta stated.

    He additionally confused that CCI’s function is to make sure quicker market correction and to not implement the regime, which is characterised by the heavy imposition of penalties, which in any occasion, get mired in litigation making the opposite cures as properly a casualty within the appellate course of.

  • Prosus NV terminates settlement to accumulate Indian fee aggregator BillDesk

    Dutch shopper web conglomerate Prosus NV, which is the mum or dad firm of Indian fintech firm PayU, Monday stated it has terminated its settlement to accumulate Indian fee aggregator BillDesk. The $4.7 billion deal that was introduced in August final 12 months, would have turn out to be the most important fintech M&A deal in India if it had gone by way of, and proposed to merge BillDesk with PayU India.

    Notably, the businesses had acquired approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) solely final month.

    ‘Conditions not fulfilled’

    “Closing of the transaction was subject to the fulfilment of various conditions precedent, including approval by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). PayU secured CCI approval on 5 September 2022. However, certain conditions precedent were not fulfilled by the 30 September 2022 long stop date, and the agreement has terminated automatically in accordance with its terms and, accordingly, the proposed transaction will not be implemented,” Prosus stated in a press release.

    The firm didn’t element the unfulfilled situations that led to the deal’s termination. An e-mail question despatched to Prosus didn’t elicit a response.

    The Indian Express reached out to BillDesk co-founder MN Srinivasu, however he didn’t reply.

    On September 5, following the CCI approval PayU India stated that the transaction concerned “novel assessment by the CCI of dynamic digital markets”. “Prosus firmly believes that this acquisition of BillDesk will have significant pro-competitive benefits for the Indian economy and will strengthen the Indian digital payments market, which is fully regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. This acquisition by PayU of BillDesk is also consistent with the government of India’s Digital India mission and will benefit Indian merchants, government institutions and consumers,” Anirban Mukherjee, CEO, PayU India had stated.

    Among largest fee gateway aggregators

    BillDesk, which was based in 2000 by former consultants MN Srinivasu, Ajay Kaushal, and Karthik Ganpathy, is among the many largest fee gateway aggregators within the nation, dealing with greater than half of all on-line billing transactions, based on business estimates.

    Prior to the announcement final 12 months, the place Prosus stated it might purchase BillDesk, the Mumbai-based fee aggregator had additionally been in talks with different fintech giants for an acquisition, together with Paytm.

    The deal was anticipated to present an exit to BillDesk’s institutional traders — General Atlantic, Temasek Holdings, Visa, TA Associates, March Capital, and Clearstone Venture Partners — along with the three co-founders, who collectively held a 29.6% share within the firm.

    Payment aggregators like BillDesk basically deliver collectively numerous fee programs resembling credit score or debit playing cards, web banking, UPI, and wallets on a single platform for on-line retailers to supply to their clients.

    According to business estimates, BillDesk and Paytm collectively managed an enormous chunk of India’s fee gateway site visitors. However, traders of BillDesk had been searching for an exit within the face of rising competitors from, apart from Paytm, a number of gamers together with Infibeam, CCAvenue, PayU, and Razorpay. For the 12 months ending March 2021, the corporate reported a web revenue of Rs 271 crore, or round $37 million, making it a major goal for different fee companies seeking to develop inorganically.

    PayU is current in a number of fee segments — gateways, pockets, credit score providers — and even within the non-banking monetary firm (NBFC) house. Along the best way, it has acquired or invested in a number of fintech startups together with CitrusPay, ZestMoney, PaySense, and Wibmo.

    According to Prosus, which is a division of the South African multinational Naspers, the acquisition of BillDesk was to present an enormous leg-up to PayU in India, with the post-deal group entity dealing with 4 billion transactions yearly — 4 occasions PayU’s present stage in India.

  • Sony-Zee $10 bln media play might face adjustments, delays in India antitrust evaluation

    A full-scale antitrust evaluation of plans to create a $10 billion media powerhouse in India by Japan’s Sony and Zee Entertainment may drive concessions and extend the method by months at a essential second for the Indian firm.

    An preliminary Competition Commission of India (CCI) evaluation has flagged issues, Reuters reported, arguing the group would have “unparalleled bargaining power” with 92 channels coupled with Sony’s $86 billion in international revenues.

    The CCI has known as for additional investigation, highlighting the impression on competitors because of the “strong” market place the merged entity would have over promoting and channel pricing, notably within the standard Hindi language phase.

    Shares in Zee fell 6% throughout commerce on Thursday, a day after Reuters reported on CCI’s evaluation of the merger.

    Zee didn’t reply to questions for this text, however has stated it was persevering with to take all required authorized steps to finish the CCI approval.

    Sony didn’t reply to Reuters requests for remark.

    Ashok Chawla, a former CCI chairman, advised Reuters that such a evaluation may result in an in depth merger evaluation involving an examination of various broadcast choices, delaying approval.

    Four antitrust legal professionals advised Reuters such a discover signalled deep CCI worries and was more likely to drive Sony and Zee to rethink their proposed construction, though none stated it was more likely to result in a collapse of the deal.

    Any potential delay, nevertheless, comes at a nasty time for Zee, a family TV title in India arrange in 1992 by Subhash Chandra, dubbed the “Father of Indian Television”.

    Zee’s founders needed to dilute their stake within the Indian firm to sort out their debt ranges in 2019 and the Sony deal was struck amid a 2021 boardroom battle with an abroad shareholder.

    For Sony, the merger will additional its ambitions to faucet extra digital, TV and regional language audiences within the fast-growing Indian market of 1.4 billion folks.

    The legal professionals stated Sony and Zee might have to supply a “structural” treatment, which may contain promoting some channels, and “behavioural” cures similar to giving commitments that they won’t increase costs for advertisers for a sure interval.

    “They may have to let go of some channels by selling … to third parties. This is CCI’s preferred remedy to reduce threat to competition,” stated Shweta Dubey, a accomplice at Indian legislation agency SD Partners and a former official within the CCI’s M&A division.

    “The whole approval process will be delayed significantly now, and will depend on how palatable proposed changes are to the CCI and how companies negotiate.”

    REMEDY RISK

    The proposed cures had been more likely to be “substantial”, one supply with direct data of the antitrust issues over the merger plan stated, with out elaborating.

    In CCI’s 13-year historical past, 22 offers needed to be modified to realize approval. In 2015, for instance, when Indian multiplex large PVR Ltd sought to amass a smaller rival’s enterprise, the watchdog raised issues, forcing it to decide to promoting some theatres and provides assurances to not increase in some areas.

    The CCI has given Sony and Zee 30 days from Aug. 3 to reply to its discover, however they’re but to submit their responses, stated a second supply with direct data of the method.

    Analysts stated the mixed entity would reshape India’s media and leisure panorama, heating up competitors with Netflix, Amazon and Walt Disney and with Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s Viacom18 three way partnership with Paramount Global.

    Media corporations aren’t simply betting massive on TV channels, but in addition on their video streaming platforms and sports activities rights.

    Zee this week made one other massive transfer, getting into right into a licensing take care of Disney to buy some cricket TV rights, which IIFL Securities estimates to be value $1.5 billion.

    In a analysis notice, the brokerage stated these funds ought to have been made partly by the recent funds Sony deliberate to infuse into the merged entity and flagged issues over any antitrust delay.

    “The biggest risk … is the merger not going through and Zee being saddled with high content costs,” IIFL stated.

  • Competition Comm clears Axis Bank-Citi deal

    Competition Commission has authorized Axis Bank’s proposed acquisition of Citi’s client enterprise in India, one of many largest offers within the nation’s monetary companies area.

    Under the deal price Rs 12,325 crore, introduced on March 30, Axis Bank would take over Citi’s bank cards, private loans and wealth administration companies which might be centered on the prosperous phase.

    In a tweet on Tuesday, the regulator mentioned it has cleared the “acquisition of Citibank, N.A.’s and Citicorp Finance (India) Limited’s undertakings comprising of their consumer banking activities by Axis Bank”.

    Deals past a sure threshold require approval of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which retains a tab on unfair enterprise practices throughout sectors.

    In March, Axis Bank and Citi had signed a definitive settlement for the deal, which is anticipated to be accomplished by September 2024 and would assist Axis Bank achieve entry to 30 lakh new clients.

    The events concerned within the deal are Axis Bank Ltd, Citibank, N.A. (performing by way of its India department) and Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.

    “The transaction involves the proposed slump sale by Citi of an undertaking comprising its consumer banking activities to the acquirer on a going concern basis and the proposed slump sale by Citicorp of an undertaking comprising its consumer banking activities to the acquirer on a going concern basis,” as per the abstract of the transaction obtainable on CCI web site.

  • Domino’s India might shift enterprise away from supply corporations Zomato and Swiggy

    Domino’s Pizza India franchise will take into account taking a few of its enterprise away from in style meals supply apps, Zomato and SoftBank-backed Swiggy, if their commissions rise additional, based on a letter seen by Reuters.

    The disclosure was made by Jubilant FoodWorks, which runs the Domino’s and Dunkin’ Donuts chain in India, in a confidential submitting with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) which is investigating alleged anti-competitive practices of Zomato and Swiggy.

    Jubilant is India’s largest meals providers firm, with greater than 1,600 branded restaurant shops – together with 1,567 Domino’s and 28 Dunkin shops.

    The CCI ordered in April its probe into Zomato and Swiggy after an Indian restaurant group alleged preferential therapy, exorbitant commissions and different anti-competitive practices. The meals supply apps deny any wrongdoing.

    After the CCI sought responses from Domino’s India franchise and several other different eating places as a part of its investigation, Jubilant sought extra time to share knowledge associated to its on-line gross sales, however wrote to the watchdog expressing considerations over probably larger fee of food-ordering platforms.

    “In case of an increase in commission rates, Jubilant will consider shifting more of its businesses from online restaurant platforms to the in-house ordering system,” the corporate acknowledged in its July 19 letter addressed to the CCI.

    Jubilant FoodWorks declined to remark, whereas the CCI and Swiggy didn’t reply.

    Zomato, which is backed by China’s Ant Group, stated it had no plans within the pipeline to extend restaurant associate commissions on the prime finish. “No commercial decisions are unilaterally taken that may adversely impact our stakeholders.”

    With the rising use of smartphones and enticing reductions on supply, meals supply platforms have turn out to be more and more in style in India. Jubilant in February stated Domino’s app was put in 8.2 million instances in the course of the quarter to December 2021, and its “own app sales continued to grow faster than the aggregators”.

    Jubilant’s warning comes as Zomato and Swiggy face accusations by many eating places in India that their alleged practices harm their enterprise.

    The CCI case was sparked by a grievance from the National Restaurant Association of India, which has greater than 500,000 members, and alleges that commissions charged by Zomato and Swiggy within the 20 per cent to 30 per cent vary have been “unviable”.

    A senior business govt with direct information stated that Zomato’s and Swiggy’s commissions have been a priority for Domino’s and lots of different eating places.

    “If commissions are increased further, they will lead to profit squeeze of businesses and will simply be passed on to consumers,” stated the manager, who declined to be named.

    Before the investigation was introduced, Zomato informed the CCI it negotiates and costs commissions from eating places however that they had no bearing on how listings seem on its app.

    Swiggy acknowledged that its commissions have been decided by elements equivalent to a restaurant’s reputation or the amount of orders, based on the watchdog’s preliminary order.

  • Google appoints former NITI Aayog, CCI official as India public coverage chief

    Google has appointed Archana Gulati — a former official with the NITI Aayog and the Competition Commission of India (CCI) — as its public coverage head in India efficient this week, a Google India spokesperson instructed The Indian Express.

    Gulati was Joint Secretary, Digital Communications at NITI Aayog from August 2019 to April 2021, previous to which she served as an Officer on Special Duty with the Secretary of Telecom for greater than two years.

    From June 2014 to June 2016, she served as a senior official on the CCI mergers and acquisitions, in response to her LinkedIn profile. Gulati’s appointment comes at a time when the federal government and the antitrust watchdog are more and more shining the highlight on practices adopted by big-tech firms which have up to now operated in regulatory blindspots.

    This 12 months alone, the CCI ordered a probe into Alphabet Inc, the dad or mum firm of Google, over allegations that the search large has indulged in “abuse of dominance in news aggregation” and compelled unfair phrases on digital information publishers. In a unique case, the CCI revealed preliminary findings of a case towards Google, the place it termed the Android proprietor’s billing system for app builders as “unfair and discriminatory”, paving the best way for potential penalties.

  • News referral service: Google below CCI lens

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a probe right into a criticism of abuse of dominant place by Google of their information referral and associated commercial service, the Indian Newspaper Society (INS) stated in an announcement.

    The INS has stated Alphabet Inc, which is the dad or mum firm of Google, Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, Google Ireland Limited, and Google Asia Pacific have been abusing their dominance within the “news referral services” within the on-line information media market, which was in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

    The newspaper society additionally alleged that the publishers of stories weren’t being paid a good worth for the content material they produced and put out on their digital platforms.

    “Several countries, including Australia, France and Spain, have passed legislation requiring tech companies, including Google, to adequately compensate content producers for using their content and search results,” the INS stated in its assertion.

    The Indian Express is a part of the group of newspapers and digital information media shops which kind the INS.

    The INS added media homes have been being saved “in the dark on the total advertising revenue collected by Google and what actual percentage of the advertising revenue is being transferred to media organisations”. “The European Publishers Council had also filed a competition complaint against Google alleging that Google has achieved end to end control of the ad-tech value chain, thus abusing its dominant position,” it stated.