Report Wire

Tag: Competition Commission of India

  • CCI to not proceed in opposition to Amazon

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has determined to not proceed in opposition to Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd. (ASSPL) over allegations that the e-commerce big was utilizing vendor knowledge to create knock-offs and increase its personal listings in search outcomes.

    The CCI had requested Amazon Seller Services to file data with the Commission and determined to not proceed with the matter after reviewing submissions from Amazon. The CCI clarified, nevertheless, that the choice to not proceed with the case wouldn’t “come in the way, in any manner, in examining the conduct of ASSPL or any of its related entities either past, present or future,” if the agency’s submissions are discovered to be false or if the corporate’s conduct is discovered to violate competitors regulation.

    In response, CAIT known as the CCI a “spineless toothless body”. The regulator had taken up the matter suo moto after a report claimed that ‘Amazon copied products and rigged search results to promote its own brands’.

  • India hits Apple with antitrust investigation over app-store practices

    India’s antitrust watchdog ordered an investigation into how Apple Inc. runs its App Store, turning into the latest nation to take intention on the U.S. expertise big.

    The order from the Competition Commission of India stated Friday that its preliminary view is that the Cupertino, Calif., firm has violated among the nation’s antitrust legal guidelines. The physique is “prima facie satisfied {that a} case is made out for guiding an investigation” into Apple, the order stated.

    The watchdog was responding to a grievance earlier final 12 months from an Indian nonprofit group alleging {that a} 30% charge Apple expenses builders promoting digital content material by way of their apps harms software program makers and stifles competitors. Apple has denied the claims, saying it’s centered on making its gadgets as enticing as attainable to customers, in line with the order.

    The watchdog stated Friday {that a} report must be accomplished within the subsequent 60 days. It didn’t define what would possibly occur if Apple is discovered to have violated the nation’s antitrust guidelines. An Apple spokesman declined to remark Monday.

    Companies together with Apple, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook have up to now two years confronted formal regulatory investigations, expenses or fines in varied instances filed by the European Union and nations such because the U.S., the U.Ok., France and Germany. The corporations have denied wrongdoing.

    App shops, corresponding to Apple’s and Google’s Play retailer, have grow to be profitable portals for tech corporations to succeed in billions of customers world wide.

    The EU filed expenses final 12 months in opposition to Apple over its App Store guidelines, saying that the corporate stifled competitors by requiring some apps to make use of Apple’s in-app funds system. Last month, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, the nation’s competitors regulator, stated Apple’s insurance policies for in-app funds broke the nation’s competitors regulation. It ordered Apple to regulate its guidelines, although its order has been suspended in Dutch court docket.

    In the U.S., Apple gained a U.S. appeals court docket reprieve final month in implementing modifications to its App Store ordered by a federal choose as a part of its antitrust battle with Epic Games Inc. A federal choose had earlier stated that Apple should loosen its restrictions on how builders can search fee.

    And in what was the world’s first invoice difficult Apple and Google’s dominance over how apps on their platforms promote digital items, South Korea barred giant app-store operators from providing solely their very own fee platforms for in-app purchases of video games and different content material. Google responded by providing alternate in-app fee choices, although charges stay. Apple has advised the South Korean authorities that its present app-store insurance policies already adjust to the brand new regulation.

    The iPhone maker has seen latest progress in India after struggling in earlier years to spice up gross sales within the South Asian nation’s large market, which is dominated by cheap gadgets operating the Android working system.

    Apple made notable good points final 12 months, particularly amongst higher-end smartphones, in line with analysis agency Canalys. Apple had its highest ever quarterly shipments within the third quarter of 2021, and total smartphone market share elevated to 4.5%, from 1.4% a 12 months earlier.

    Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook stated in October that the corporate is incomes vital income in rising markets, citing India and Vietnam as vibrant spots. “We are optimistic in regards to the future, particularly as we see robust demand for our new merchandise,” Mr. Cook stated.

    Apple’s consumer base stays comparatively small in India, and any antitrust motion might have restricted monetary implications, stated Counterpoint’s Tarun Pathak, including that the developments could be intently watched. India is a crucial market partially as a result of so many builders who make apps for native and world customers are primarily based within the nation, he stated.

    India’s authorities has been tightening guidelines on world tech corporations within the nation as they make investments billions to succeed in customers getting on-line for the primary time. New Delhi has applied new e-commerce laws, made new guidelines governing on-line discourse and requested Facebook for particulars on the way it displays and removes inflammatory content material on its platform.

    Last 12 months Indian police visited Twitter Inc.’s workplace in New Delhi to research the corporate’s labeling of tweets from a ruling social gathering spokesman as deceptive. Digital rights advocates criticized the police transfer.

    Subscribe to Mint Newsletters * Enter a legitimate e-mail * Thank you for subscribing to our e-newsletter.

    Never miss a narrative! Stay related and knowledgeable with Mint.
    Download
    our App Now!!

  • CCI suspends Amazon-Future deal nod

    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Friday suspended its nod to Amazon’s 2019 funding in Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL), after discovering that Amazon had hid vital info whereas in search of regulatory approval. The suspension, termed “unprecedented” by specialists, might hit Amazon’s efforts to dam Reliance Industries’ (RIL) acquisition of Future Retail’s property.
    The 2019 deal gave Amazon the choice to purchase FCPL’s promoter Future Retail inside 3-10 years, which Amazon has relied on to get a keep on a proposed shopping for of Future Group’s retail property by RIL.
    “Amazon had misled the Commission to believe, through false statements and material omissions, that the combination and its purpose were the interest of Amazon in the business of FCPL,” the CCI famous in its order, putting its prior nod to the mix in abeyance and giving Amazon 60 days to present discover for the mix, publish which the Commission would “examine the combination afresh.”
    The CCI stated suppression of key info arose “from a deliberate design on the part of Amazon to suppress the actual scope and purpose of the Combination,” and imposed a wonderful of Rs 202 crore on the corporate.
    Experts stated that the transfer was unprecedented and more likely to be challenged.
    Vaibhav Choukse, accomplice at regulation agency JSA, stated the transfer by the competitors regulator was the primary occasion of the Commission suspending its approval for the reason that introduction of the merger management regime in 2011, including “whether the CCI has the power to do that under the scheme of the Competition Act will be tested before the appellate court.”
    The Commission discovered that Amazon had not disclosed particulars of the shareholder settlement on the time of acquisition and its objective to accumulate strategic rights over Future Retail and to have a “foot in the door” in Indian retail.

  • CCI suspends approval for Amazon-Future Coupons deal; slaps Rs 202 cr penalty on e-tailer

    In a big growth, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Friday suspended its greater than two-year-old approval for Amazon’s deal to amass stake in Future Coupons Pvt Ltd and in addition imposed a Rs 202 crore penalty on the e-commerce main for sure contraventions.
    This comes amid a bitter authorized battle between Amazon and Future Group over the latter’s proposed Rs 24,713 crore cope with Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd (RRVL). Against this backdrop, Future Group had complained to the CCI.
    In a 57-page order, the regulator stated the approval for the Amazon-Future Coupons deal “shall remain in abeyance”.

    Citing sure contraventions, CCI stated these have arisen “from a deliberate design on the part of Amazon to suppress the actual scope and purpose of the combination” and that it finds no mitigating issue.
    Consequently, fines totalling Rs 2 crore have been imposed on Amazon.
    For failure to inform the mixture within the requisite phrases, the watchdog has additionally slapped a penalty of Rs 200 crore.
    The events concerned within the mixture have been Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) — a direct subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc — and Future Coupons.
    “We are reviewing the order passed by the Competition Commission of India, and will decide on next steps in due course,” an Amazon spokesperson stated in a press release.

    While approving the deal in November 2019, CCI had additionally talked about the order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the data supplied by the acquirer was discovered to be incorrect.
    “This approval should not be construed as immunity in any manner from subsequent proceedings before the Commission for violations of other provisions of the (Competition) Act,” it had stated.
    On November 29, the Supreme Court gave two extra weeks’ time to Amazon to look and argue earlier than the CCI which had declined adjournment of listening to in a case associated to revocation of approval given to the e-retailer for the cope with Future Coupons.
    In August 2019, Amazon had agreed to buy 49 per cent in unlisted Future Coupons, which owns 7.3 per cent fairness in listed Future Retail by way of convertible warrants, with the precise to purchase into the flagship Future Retail after a interval of three to 10 years.

    In August 2020, RRVL stated it would purchase the retail and wholesale enterprise, and the logistics and warehousing enterprise of Future Group for Rs 24,713 crore. The scheme of association entails the consolidation of Future Group’s retail and wholesale property into one entity Future Enterprises Ltd after which transferring it to Reliance Retail.
    The deal has been contested by Amazon, an investor in Future Coupons.

  • Google plea try and frustrate probe: CCI

    THE Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Friday advised the Delhi High Court that Google had threatened to sue the competitors regulator and its petition, accusing the Commission of leaking the confidential report, and it was solely an try and frustrate the continued probe in opposition to it.
    “Advise your client. Just because he is there (in California) … he has to know that if he wants to function in a country, he has to know the law. This I don’t appreciate,” noticed Justice Rekha Palli in the course of the listening to of Google’s petition in search of safety of the confidential data contained within the DG’s probe report in regards to the firm’s Android smartphone agreements.

    While opposing the petition, ASG N Venkatraman stated: “It will send a completely wrong signal. This is just to frustrate proceedings. Please dismiss it….”

  • CCI clears Adani stake purchase in Gangavaram Port

    The Competition Commission of India on Monday accredited the proposed acquisition of Andhra Pradesh authorities’s 10.4 per cent stake in Gangavaram Port Limited (GPL) by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Limited (APSEZ), thus, clearing the best way for GPL to turn into an entirely owned subsidiary of APSEZ.
    The competitors regulator has beforehand accredited APSEZ’s acquisition of 89.6 per cent stake in Gangavaram Port from the DVR household and Windy Lakeside Investment Limited.
    “Commission approves proposed acquisition of 10.40% equity shareholding of Gangavaram Port by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd,” the regulator stated in a tweet on Monday.

    Andhra Pradesh had greenlit the proposed acquisition on Friday by means of a notification.

    The Gangavaram port has 64 million metric tonnes (mmt) capability and handles a various mixture of dry and bulk commodities together with coal, iron ore, fertiliser, limestone, bauxite, sugar, and Steel. The port had a cargo quantity of 34.5 mmt and income of Rs.1,082 crore in FY20.

  • Judge bars Apple from forcing App Store funds on apps in Epic Games case

    NEW DELHI: A US courtroom choose has requested Apple to permit third social gathering cost choices on apps distributed by means of its platform. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a everlasting injunction within the Epic vs Apple case on Friday, completely restraining the iPhone maker from prohibiting builders from together with exterior hyperlinks, metadata buttons and different calls to motion of their merchandise. This comes lower than every week after gaming large Epic Games requested Apple maker to permit the corporate’s hit sport Fortnite again into the App Store in South Korea.

    The gaming large had sued Apple and Google final yr, after the 2 corporations took Fortnite off their platforms, accusing Epic of breaching contractual phrases. Apple and Google don’t permit app builders to incorporate hyperlinks to 3rd social gathering cost choices, or direct customers to their very own web sites, when distributing apps by means of their app shops. They cost 30% charges for in-app purchases, subscriptions and so forth., which is lowered to fifteen% for app makers who earn lower than $1 million per yr.

    On 30 August, South Korea handed a brand new legislation, which bars platform corporations from utilizing such insurance policies. Though the legislation is but to return into impact, Epic requested Apple to permit Fortnite again and the iPhone maker refused to take action. “Epic has admitted to breach of contract and as of now, there’s no reputable foundation for reinstatement of their developer account,” the company said in a statement, adding that Epic will be allowed to return if it agrees to “play by the same rules” that others do.

    As a part of the ruling within the US, the choose additionally stated that Apple isn’t allowed to cease app makers from speaking different technique of funds with clients “by means of factors of contact obtained voluntarily”. However, Rogers additionally affirmed that Epic was certainly in breach of contract with Apple and should pay the corporate 30% of all revenues collected by means of its personal funds system because it was applied, which quantities to $3.5 million.

    She additionally rejected each Epic and Apple’s definition of {the marketplace}. “The related market right here is digital cell gaming transactions, not gaming typically and never Apple’s personal inside working programs associated to the App Store,” she said. She added that Apple isn’t a monopolist under that definition, but the company is still engaging in “anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws”.

    The injunction issued by the choose is scheduled to return into impact on 9 December, which is 90 days from the date of subject. However, appeals and challenges to the judgment are anticipated, that means it could nonetheless be delayed.

    “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for builders or for customers. Epic is preventing for honest competitors amongst in-app cost strategies and app shops for a billion customers,” Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, stated on Twitter after the judgment. He additionally instructed NPR that the corporate has plans to attraction the judgment.

    The ruling from Judge Rogers is critical within the bigger scheme of issues, because it units precedent for rules that many international locations, together with India, are engaged on. Startups had approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) final yr, whereas a non-profit group based mostly in Rajasthan had filed an info with the CCI in opposition to Apple earlier this month.

    In response to rising criticism and pushback from builders, each Apple and Google had made adjustments to their insurance policies. While each corporations lowered commissions to fifteen% for apps that earn as much as $1 million a yr from their shops, Apple has additionally signed agreements within the US and Japan, which permit builders to speak alternate modes of funds to their clients.

    Epic’s case can be vital for sport builders as they’re amongst the most important earners on app shops. Even Microsoft, which permits app makers to maintain 100% of their revenues by utilizing third social gathering funds modes on their apps, doesn’t accomplish that for gaming corporations.

    Subscribe to Mint Newsletters * Enter a legitimate electronic mail * Thank you for subscribing to our e-newsletter.

    Never miss a narrative! Stay related and knowledgeable with Mint.
    Download
    our App Now!!

  • From South Korea, a warning for Google and Apple worldwide

    South Korea’s National Assembly has permitted a landmark legislation altering the best way platform firms function their app shops. Nicknamed the “Anti-Google legislation”, it has resonance past the nation’s borders and is one among a sort proper now. Mint explains:

    What is the anti-Google legislation?

    South Korea’s meeting handed an modification to the nation’s Telecommunications Business Act, which stops corporations like Google and Apple from forcing builders to make use of their built-in fee programs for promoting subscriptions and different digital objects by Play Store and App Store. It additionally prevents app entrepreneurs from unfairly delaying the evaluate of cellular content material or deleting such content material from their markets. Google and Apple cost builders a payment for promoting in-app objects, like subscriptions, by their app shops. Many builders, together with billion-dollar startups, have approached governments to intervene and cease this follow.

    Why does this legislation matter?

    In October final yr, a gaggle of 15 startups approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to debate these points. On 11 November, the CCI wrote to 17 startups, asking questions on their partnerships with the Play Store, attainable repercussions on the ecosystem if Google abuses market dominance and extra. Recent paperwork unearthed as a part of an antitrust lawsuit accusing Google of abusing monopoly energy within the US alleged that the corporate had provided Netflix “considerably decreased income share” to be able to maintain the corporate from utilizing different fee programs.

    What do Google and Apple say in regards to the legislation?

    Google argues that it prices the expertise large cash to take care of the Android working system and Play Store. Apple says the legislation would put customers vulnerable to fraud and “undermine their privateness protections”. Most importantly, Apple claimed that 482,000 registered developers in South Korea will have “fewer opportunities”.

    Have Google, Apple tried  to  resolve  the  difficulty?

    Both corporations had introduced small enterprise programmes, reducing the charges to fifteen% for builders who earn lower than $1 million off their shops. Last week, Apple introduced a $100 million Small Developer Assistance Fund as a part of a settle-ment settlement in a class-action lawsuit. The agency additionally stated it might permit builders to make use of information obtained from their apps to tell clients about different fee strategies. Unlike Apple, Google additionally permits customers to put in apps that aren’t on the Play Store and set up different app shops on Android telephones.

    How necessary are these app shops?

    Documents unsealed from a lawsuit within the US not too long ago revealed that Google generated $11.2 billion in income from Play Store in 2019. In June this yr, Apple stated builders on the App Store facilitated $643 billion in billings and gross sales in 2020, a 24% enhance. The two app shops are integral to the 2 corporations’ companies, giving them huge energy over the app ecosystem on this planet. While different shops can be found, the truth that Google Play Store and App Store are pre-installed on gadgets offers them an enormous profit.

    Subscribe to Mint Newsletters * Enter a legitimate electronic mail * Thank you for subscribing to our e-newsletter.

    Never miss a narrative! Stay linked and knowledgeable with Mint.
    Download
    our App Now!!

    Topics

  • CCI Chairman Ashok Kumar Gupta: Digital markets recently have turn out to be ‘centres for unchecked dominance’

    Digital marketplaces have turn out to be “centres for entrenched and unchecked dominance,” the chairperson of the competitors regulator mentioned on Thursday, noting that unfair “platform-to-business rules” and unequal bargaining energy between digital platforms and companies might end in exploitation.
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is presently investigating allegations of anti-competitive conduct by on-line platforms together with Amazon, Flipkart and MakeMyTrip. Google is presently dealing with three separate CCI investigations into its conduct within the Smart TV, cellular working system and on-line fee platforms areas.
    “While there is no doubt that digital markets are the epicentres of technological progress in innovation, lately they have become centres for entrenched and unchecked dominance,” mentioned CCI Chairman Ashok Kumar Gupta at a digital occasion organised by the Center for the Digital Future (CDF).
    Gupta famous that digital markets in India had been rife with single gamers or duopolies commanding a big market share.
    “The relationship of multiple actors in the ecosystem with these (online) platforms has been increasingly raising competition concerns. Situations can arise where dominant firms in the market are in a position to extract large rents, or even oust their trading partners,” he mentioned, including that competitors needed to be more and more aware of unequal bargaining energy between enterprise and platforms.

    The National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) lately filed info with the CCI claiming that on-line meals supply platforms Swiggy and Zomato are charging exorbitant commissions to eating places and are utilizing buyer information to advertise their very own cloud kitchens.
    Gupta additionally mentioned {that a} current e-commerce market research by CCI concluded that in circumstances the place on-line platforms function each {the marketplace} and a competitor, they’ve an “incentive to leverage the control or the platform in favour of their preferred vendors of private label products to the disadvantage of other sellers or service providers with the platform.”
    The CCI had earlier this yr ordered a probe into Flipkart and Amazon over allegations of preferential remedy to sure sellers on their platforms by most popular listings and thru the platforms agreeing to bear the price of reductions from sure sellers throughout key gross sales durations.

  • CCI rejects anti-competitive conduct costs in opposition to Uber

    The Competition regulator on Wednesday dismissed allegations of antitrust violations in opposition to cab aggregator Uber levelled by Meru, noting that the previous is just not a dominant participant available in the market.
    Meru had alleged that low costs charged to prospects and excessive incentives supplied to drivers by Uber have been geared toward eliminating competitors. Meru had additionally alleged that Uber had entered into exclusivity contracts with drivers to stop them from working with different taxi operators.
    “… despite the alleged practices of Uber, which have been argued to be anti-competitive, Ola has grown in the market in almost equal measure. The competitive constraints posed by Ola and Uber on each other outweigh the anti-competitive effects alleged by Meru,” the Competition Commission of India (CCI) stated in its order. It added that incentives supplied by Uber didn’t meet “the legal test” of an exclusionary settlement that will trigger an considerable adversarial impact on competitors.
    The order dismissing the fees got here regardless of a conclusion by the investigative arm of the CCI that Uber and Ola had adopted a “below-cost pricing strategy” within the Delhi-NCR radio taxi market between January 2014 and September 2017 as neither firm was a dominant participant.

    MM Sharma, head of competitors regulation at Vaish Associates stated, “There is lacunae in the present Act because it does not address the attempt to monopolise, which both Ola and Uber can be accused of indulging in,” including that the platform-based fashions of Uber and Ola had destroyed the level-playing subject between platforms and asset-based fashions via their robust community results and using superior analytics.
    Sharma did, nonetheless, word that the CCI order was properly reasoned and based mostly on a sound financial evaluation below the prevailing authorized framework. “CCI could have waited for more time to see the effect on Competition instead of closing the case,” he stated.