The Supreme Court Today (Aug 8) agreed to hear appeals from Google, CCI, and ADIF over Google’s alleged misuse of dominance in the Android app market. This high-stakes legal battle will be heard in November.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today agreed to hear important appeals filed by Google, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), and the Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF). These appeals challenge a decision made by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which had partly supported CCI’s findings that Google misused its powerful position in the Android mobile market.
This legal case is about serious allegations made against Google. It has been said that Google used its strong position in the Android ecosystem to force unfair rules on app developers using the Play Store. It was also accused of pushing its own payment app, Google Pay, ahead of others by not following the same rules.
A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar in the Supreme Court has listed this case for hearing in November.
This matter began in November 2020, when the CCI started investigating how Google was charging for app purchases and using its billing system in the Play Store. After deep investigation, in October 2022, the CCI decided that Google was breaking the rules by forcing developers to use only its Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for paid apps and in-app purchases. However, Google’s own apps like YouTube were not treated the same, which gave it an unfair advantage.
Because of this, CCI fined Google Rs 936.44 crore and also gave clear instructions to stop such unfair practices. These included:
- Allowing third-party billing systems,
- Being transparent with data usage,
- And not using payment data to benefit its own services.
In March 2024, the NCLAT partly agreed with CCI’s findings. It confirmed that Google had broken the law in two areas:
- In the market for licensable operating systems for smartphones, and
- In the market for app stores on Android.
It ruled that Google used this power to unfairly promote Google Pay, which is against Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act.
The NCLAT also agreed with CCI that Google forced developers to use GPBS, which was unfair and against Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the law.
However, the NCLAT disagreed with some parts of CCI’s judgment. It removed CCI’s conclusion that Google had blocked others from entering the market or stopped innovation. It said there was not enough proof to show that Google’s practices had really stopped new ideas or entry, especially because Google’s billing system was responsible for less than 1% of total UPI transactions.
The Tribunal also canceled some “ex-ante” or future-based directions from CCI. These directions were based on the idea that Google acts like a “gatekeeper” in the digital market. But NCLAT said CCI had gone beyond its legal power by giving such forward-looking orders. It said that under the current law, CCI can only act after a violation has happened, not before.
This opinion was backed by the 2024 Digital Competition Law Committee Report, which said that India’s competition law currently works on an “ex-post” basis, not on preventing future risks unless the law changes.
The fine of Rs 936.44 crore was also reduced. NCLAT ruled that CCI wrongly calculated the fine based on Google’s global revenue. It said the penalty should be based only on Play Store-related revenue, which brought down the fine to Rs 216.69 crore.
Later, on May 1, NCLAT made a small change. It said Google still has to follow two rules:
- It must clearly tell users and developers how it uses data, and
- It must not use billing-related data to gain an advantage over competitors.
Google objected and said this was like reviewing the old order, which is not allowed. But NCLAT rejected this objection, after which Google went to the Supreme Court.
In this high-profile legal fight, many well-known lawyers represented the parties.
- Google was represented by Senior Advocates Sajan Poovayya and Ritin Rai, with legal team members Karan Chandhiok, Deeksha Manchanda, Tarun Donadi, Bhavika Chhabra, Palash Maheshwari, Daayar Singla, and Raksha Agarwal from Chandhiok and Mahajan.
- The CCI was represented by Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, supported by Samar Bansal, Manu Chaturvedi, Monica Benjamin, Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Vedant Kapur, Karan Sachdev, Shivali Singh, Ananya Singh, Vedant Kohli, and Khwaja Umair.
- The Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), a body representing Indian startups, was represented by Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, along with Abir Roy, Vivek Pandey, Aman Shankar, S Panda, Biyanka Bhatia, Shreya Kapoor, and Rajat Sharma from SARVADA Legal.
BACKGROUND
Google earlier filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in March 2025.
This judgment had partly agreed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Google misused its dominant position in the Android market by enforcing unfair rules related to its Play Store billing system and promoting its own app, Google Pay, over others.
Google has also challenged another order by NCLAT dated May 1, which made corrections to the original March decision. In that May order, NCLAT brought back two important directions from CCI which Google had earlier managed to get removed.
These two directions related to data transparency and use of billing data. NCLAT called the earlier removal of these directions an “inadvertent error”.
Google submitted its appeal to the Supreme Court on July 21.
The case first began in November 2020 when CCI started investigating how Google runs its Play Store billing system. By October 2022, CCI decided that Google was misusing its dominance by forcing app developers to use its Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for purchases inside apps.
At the same time, Google’s own apps like YouTube were not subject to the same rules or commission fees.
Because of this, CCI fined Google Rs 936.44 crore and ordered it to stop these anti-competitive practices. It also told Google to allow other billing systems and to be more transparent about how it handles user and developer data.
Later, on March 28, 2025, the NCLAT upheld many of CCI’s major findings. It agreed that Google had taken advantage of its strong position in two areas:
- Smartphone operating systems that other companies can license (like Android), and
- The Android app store market.
NCLAT said that Google used this dominance to promote its own digital payments app, Google Pay, which goes against the Competition Act.
“We are satisfied that dominance in first two markets has been used to leverage to promote and protect its position in the market for UPI enabled digital payment apps,”
-the NCLAT stated.
The Tribunal also supported CCI’s finding that Google had placed unfair and discriminatory rules on app developers by making it mandatory to use the Google billing system.
This was considered a violation under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act.
However, the NCLAT did not agree with everything CCI said. It rejected CCI’s views about market access denial and innovation restrictions, saying there was not enough proof. The Tribunal noted that Google’s billing system only made up less than 1% of all UPI transactions, and that there was no clear evidence of blocking competition or slowing down tech growth.
NCLAT also reversed some future-focused rules imposed by CCI—especially the ones that called Google a “gatekeeper” and tried to impose preventive (ex-ante) measures. It explained that such rules go beyond what the current Indian competition law allows.
It referred to the 2024 Digital Competition Law Committee Report, and stated that CCI’s attempt to introduce these forward-looking measures was not valid under the existing ex-post legal framework.
As a result, the original fine of Rs 936.44 crore was reduced. The NCLAT said CCI had wrongly calculated the fine based on Google’s total global revenue. Instead, the fine should only apply to Google’s earnings from the Play Store in India. The penalty was lowered to Rs 216.69 crore.
Then, in its May 1 clarification order, NCLAT brought back two CCI directions:
- Google must clearly explain its data usage policies, and
- It must not use billing data to gain an edge over competitors.
Google had argued that this amounted to reviewing the judgment, but the Tribunal disagreed and allowed these directions to be reinstated.
CASE TITLE:
Alphabet Vs Competition Commission of India.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Google
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
