Delhi High Court examines a case regarding Google Ads’ impact on Indian advertisers’ arbitration rights. Startupwala demands reinstatement of ads disapproved by Google, citing Arbitration Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Delhi High Court examining a case involving Google’s advertising system and its potential impact on Indian advertisers’ ability to seek legal recourse domestically. A petition filed by Startupwala Private Limited against Google India Private Limited, questioning the terms related to the rejection and categorization of its digital advertisements.
The plea, invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasizes Startupwala’s demand for the reinstatement of all digital advertisements disapproved or marked as ‘Limited’ by Google India in December 2023 and January 2024.
Furthermore, Startupwala seeks to prevent Google from disapproving any remaining ads under similar classifications.
ALSO READ: “Google’s User Choice Billing System” || CCI Investigates The Charges
The dispute lies the rejection of Startupwala’s advertisements based on Google’s ‘Government Documents and Official Services’ policy. However, Startupwala contests Clause 13 of the Advertisement Terms, which mandates arbitration proceedings in Santa Clara County, California, USA.
Startupwala contends that this clause effectively denies them the chance to seek legal redress within India, which raises substantial concerns about the accessibility of justice for Indian entities.
Justice Pratibha M. Singh, presiding over the case, has issued a notice to Google, prompting a thorough evaluation of whether such contractual clauses unduly restrict Indian advertisers’ access to legal rights or necessitate arbitration proceedings within India.
In response to the notice, Google has been directed to submit its reply within two weeks. Meanwhile, the court has ordered that advertisements currently labeled as ‘Eligible (limited)’ and not blocked should remain unaltered until the next hearing.
“As the Respondent has not yet responded and there are no explanations provided as to why any of these advertisements have been rejected or labeled as Eligible (limited), the Court has taken into account the potential irreversible damage that could be inflicted upon the petitioner and its business.”
-the court emphasized.
“Therefore, it is instructed that any advertisements not currently blocked and labeled as ‘Eligible (limited)’ shall remain unblocked and not removed until the next scheduled hearing.”
– it further added.
Representatives from Startupwala, including Advocates Devashish Marwah, Biyanka Bhatia, Aneesha Rastogi, and Shohit.
On the other hand, Google India is being represented by advocates Neel Mason, Vihan Dang, Ekta Sharma, Pragya Jain, Ujjawal Bhargava, and Aditya Mathur.
Case Title:
Startupwala Private Limited v Google India Private Limited
