What the Google Play Store antitrust case means for India's digital ecosystem

The Hindu

16 hours ago

Story so far: On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court admitted an appeal filed by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, against a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The tribunal had earlier upheld, at least in part, the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) findings that Google had abused its dominant position in the Google Play Store Billing (GPSB) ecosystem to indulge in anti-competitive practices. Alongside Google's appeal, the Court also admitted related petitions from the CCI itself and the Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), which is a coalition of Indian startups critical of Big Tech dominance. A bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha has listed the matter for a detailed hearing in November.
What has the CCI accused Google of?
The CCI's investigation into Google began in 2020, sparked by complaints from app developers and industry groups who alleged that Google was using its market dominance in the Android market and GPSB system to push its own services and restrict fair competition.
By 2022, the Commission concluded that Google had engaged in multiple anti-competitive practices. Chief among them was the mandatory use of the GPBS for in-app purchases on the Play Store. This meant that developers had to use Google's payment processing system, paying a commission that typically ranged between 15% and 30%, rather than integrating their own billing solutions.
The regulator also found that Google exempted its own app YouTube from these billing requirements, giving them a cost advantage over competing services. This, the CCI argued, distorted the level-playing field and harmed both rival developers and consumers.
In addition, the CCI highlighted that the Android licensing model required smartphone makers to pre-install Google's suite of apps — Search, Chrome, YouTube, and others — as a condition for access to the Google Play Store. According to the Commission, this bundling restricted consumer choice and suppressed innovation from alternative app providers.
Based on these findings, the CCI imposed a fine of ₹936.44 crore on Google and issued a set of behavioural remedies, including directives to decouple Google's payment system from Play Store access, ensure transparency in billing data, and refrain from using such data to advantage its own services.
What is Google's defence?
Google rejected the CCI's conclusions, arguing that its practices were designed to enhance user experience, maintain security, and enable a sustainable business model for the Android ecosystem.
The company maintained that Android is an open-source operating system, available for free to device manufacturers, and that OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are not obligated to install Google's proprietary apps if they choose to license the core Android platform without Play Store access. It argued that pre-installing a set of Google apps was a matter of efficiency and user convenience, and did not prevent users from downloading competing apps.
On the billing side, Google claimed that GPBS ensured safe and reliable transactions for users, helping to prevent fraud and reduce payment failures. The commission fees, it said, were consistent with industry standards and provided developers access to Google's global infrastructure, distribution reach, and regular security updates.
Google also argued that exempting certain in-house services from GPBS was not anti-competitive but a recognition of differences in their business models. It pointed out that many leading Indian apps like PhonePe, Paytm, and Hotstar had grown successfully on Android, which shows that the market remained vibrant and competitive.
What was the NCLAT's judgment?
In March, the NCLAT delivered its ruling on Google's appeal against the CCI's 2022 order. The tribunal upheld several of the CCI's findings, agreeing that Google's mandatory billing policy and bundling of apps amounted to abuse of dominance. However, it reduced the financial penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore, reasoning that the original amount was disproportionate to the conduct in question.
The NCLAT also struck down some of the CCI's behavioural directions, holding that certain remedies were either over-broad or lacked sufficient evidentiary basis. In May 2025, following a review petition, the tribunal reinstated two key directions that Google must be transparent about its billing data policies, and that it must not use such data to gain a competitive advantage for its own apps and services.
This partial victory left all parties dissatisfied. Google sought a complete reversal of the findings, the CCI wanted its original penalties and remedies restored in full, and ADIF argued that the tribunal had gone too easy on Google.
What's at stake now?
The two cases against Google raises fundamental questions about how much control a dominant platform like Google should have over the devices and services it supports, and to what extent regulators can intervene in the name of competition.
For consumers, a ruling in favour of the CCI could mean more choice and potentially lower prices. If developers can bypass GPBS and use cheaper payment systems, they might pass on some of the savings to users. Greater transparency and restrictions on data use could also enhance privacy and fairness in app rankings and recommendations. However, industry observers warn that loosening Google's control could lead to more fragmentation in Android, with different devices offering inconsistent user experiences.
For smartphone makers, the verdict could influence licensing costs and product flexibility. If the Supreme Court upholds the CCI's original remedies, OEMs might gain more leeway to pre-install competing services or experiment with alternative Android versions without losing access to the Play Store. This could be especially significant for smaller Indian brands that have struggled to differentiate themselves in a Google-centric ecosystem.
For Indian startups and app developers, the case represents an opportunity to level the playing field against a global giant. ADIF has argued that Google's policies not only limit payment options but also give it an undue edge in promoting its own apps. A strong pro-CCI ruling could give local companies better bargaining power and distribution access.
For Google, the stakes go beyond India. The country is one of its largest markets by user base, and an adverse ruling here could trigger similar regulatory demands in other jurisdictions. It could also force Google to reconsider its global Android business model, especially if courts require it to unbundle services or open its billing systems.
What's the road ahead?
The Supreme Court's hearings in November will likely examine both the legal interpretation of 'abuse of dominance' under Indian competition law and the economic realities of platform markets. Whatever the outcome, the decision will set an important precedent for how India balances innovation, consumer protection, and market fairness in the digital era. With Android powering over 95% of smartphones in the country, the Court's ruling will directly influence how hundreds of millions of Indians access apps, make payments, and use mobile services in the years to come.
If the case ends with strong enforcement of the CCI's original directions, India could emerge as a leading example of robust digital market regulation outside the EU. On the other hand, if the Court sides with Google, it will reaffirm the status quo.
This article has been updated with the latest information