A mere nudge to promote one’s own app could not be construed as foreclosing the market for rival competitors, Google tells NCLAT
CCI yet to identify any harm to users, yet finds the MADA requirements anti-competitive, said Google’s counsel
Google will complete its submissions on March 1 and ASG N Venkataraman will commence arguments in favour of CCI from March 2
On the seventh day of the hearing in the Android antitrust ruling case, tech major Google reportedly told the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that a mere nudge to promote one’s own app could not be construed as foreclosing the market for rival competitors.
Arguing before a tribunal bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and member (technical) Alok Srivastava, Google’s counsel Arun Kathpalia said that it is simply a marketing tactic.
Claiming that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) was ‘contradicting itself’, Kathpalia raised questions over why the competition watchdog found pre-installation of Google apps anti-competitive, when it noted, in its order, that users wanted such apps.
“CCI concedes that users want and expect them (Google apps), then where is the problem of Google mandating pre-installation and premium placement?,” Kathpalia said.
Google’s counsel also said that the competition watchdog was yet to identify any harm to users, and found the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) requirements to be anti-competitive. Training guns at CCI, Kathpalia noted that the commission had wrongly concluded Google’s ‘data advantage’ foreclosed competition, citing the antitrust ruling, which according to Google only ‘marginally’ improves search results.
Google is expected to continue its arguments well into the eighth day on Wednesday (March 1), when it will complete its submissions. Post this, the Additional Solicitor General of India N Venkataraman will commence arguments beginning March 2, representing CCI.
So far, Google, in its submissions, has argued that the CCI is yet to empirically prove the existence of a ‘status quo bias’ with regard to user behaviour on Google Chrome. The tech major has also gone on record to say that CCI’s order is riddled with alleged material irregularity and has slammed the competition watchdog for its alleged failure to consider evidence on record.
Google has also claimed that CCI plagiarised its Android antitrust ruling from a similar order issued by the European Commission in 2018, adding that the CCI report was based on a flawed probe.
On the other hand, CCI has sparred with the tech major, accusing it of using its market dominance to stifle innovation and competition. In two back-to-back orders, Google last year imposed two penalties, amounting to INR 2,274 Cr, for employing anti-competitive practices in the Android devices market and with regard to its Play Store Policies.
