Description
NCLAT concluded its hearing on the petition filed by Google on Monday, in which the tech giant challenged the Competition Commission's order imposing a fine of Rs 1,337.76 crore for anti-competitive practices related to Android mobile devices. A two-member bench from the National Company Law Appeals Tribunal (NCLAT) conducted the daily hearing for more than a month. "I have heard from the expert lawyers for the parties. The hearing is over. Judgment is reserved," said the NCLAT panel consisting of presiding judge Ashok Bhushan and member Alok Srivastava.
On October 20 last year, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) fined Google Rs 1,337.76 crore for anti-competitive practices regarding Android mobile devices. The regulator had also ordered the internet company to cease and desist from various unfair business practices.
Also Read: SC Denies Google Staying On CCI Order With ₹1337 Cr Fine
This decision was challenged before the National Company Law Appeals Tribunal (NCLAT), which is an appeal body for orders issued by the TCC.
Google, in its petition, had argued that the ICC investigation against it was "tainted", saying the two whistleblowers whose complaint the fair trading regulator had opened the investigation worked in the same office that was investigating the major company. of technology.
According to Google's guilty plea, CCI failed to conduct an "impartial, balanced and legally valid investigation" and ignored evidence from Indian users, app developers and OEMs.
Challenging the ICC order, Google said the findings are "grossly flawed and ignore" the reality of competition in India, Google's pro-competitive business model and the benefits created for all stakeholders.
Google claimed that the DG had largely copied a European Commission decision, displaying European evidence that had not been reviewed in India or even in the Commission file.
While CCI during the hearing alleged that Google had created the hegemony of digital data and called for a market space with "free, fair and open competition".
Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, who had represented the ICC in the appeals court, said that a market with greater freedom for all players would be fully in line with the principles of free competition rather than the "garden" approach to competition. walled off" of the Internet. important.
He argued that Google had used its money-making search engine as the "castle" and the rest of the other apps to play the role of defensive "ditch." This “castle and moat” strategy is data hegemony, which means that a large market player tends to get bigger and bigger, while a small player struggles to reach a critical mass of users and user data.
According to him, the capture and display of data is harnessed and monetized as advertising revenue. When choice is the guiding principle of competition law, Google's hegemony reduces both choice and competition.
Venkataraman noted that the implementation of the remedies provided by the ICC would go a long way towards having a market with greater freedom for all players, which would be in full sync with the principles of free competition rather than the "walled garden" approach. ". of Google.
Domain abuse by Google is demonstrated on all the criteria set out in Section 4 of the Competition Act in terms of mandatory pre-installation, prime placement and top app bundling. Such practices result in the imposition of unfair conditions and additional obligations, he said.
