CCI admits complaint against Google over AdTech dominance charges, orders wider probe
In an order passed by CCI on Friday, the regulator said it has decided to club the complaint with ongoing investigations in similar cases and directed the Director General (DG) to carry out a consolidated probe into Google's conduct in the AdTech ecosystem.
"The DG is directed to investigate the various alleged practices of Google in Online Display Advertising services and/ or AdTech intermediation services and submit a consolidated investigation report in the matters, accordingly," it added.
The order comes in response to a detailed complaint filed by ADIF alleging that Google has engaged in anti-competitive practices across various layers of its advertising technology stack.
In its complaint, ADIF alleged that Google, through its multiple group entities, has engaged in anti-competitive conduct by self-preferencing its own services in the AdTech ecosystem, including tying and bundling of its publisher ad server (DFP) with its ad exchange (AdX), and linking access to YouTube ad inventory with the use of its demand-side platform (DV360).
ADIF, which represents startups, companies and individuals, also alleged that such practices not only harmed publishers and advertisers but also foreclosed the market for competing AdTech service providers.
The CCI said that the participation of ADIF, which represents key stakeholders in the start-up and digital ecosystem, could bring additional insights to the probe and there was no legal barrier to clubbing the matter with the ongoing investigation.
The Commission said it was prima facie satisfied that Google's conduct warranted scrutiny under Section 4 of the Competition Act, which deals with abuse of dominant position.
It directed that the matter be clubbed with four existing cases and a consolidated report be submitted after investigation.
"Allegations made by ADIF in the present matter already form part of the allegations being investigated in the Publishers Case (supra), in terms of the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act, the commission decides to club the present matter," the CCI said.
However, in its response, Google denied the allegations and said it operates in a competitive AdTech market in India, with players like Xandr, Amazon Ads and the Trade Desk. It maintained that its products are interoperable and not tied.
However, the CCI said these aspects will be examined during the course of the investigation.
"We are reviewing the CCI's orders. We welcome the CCI's decision to dismiss one part of the complaint. We remain confident that our ongoing work with the CCI will affirm that Google's advertising practices have consistently benefited advertisers, publishers, and users, and are fully compliant with competition law," according to Google spokesperson.
In a separate order, the CCI dismissed a complaint filed by ADIF against Google, concluding that the allegations raised were already examined and settled in previous cases.
The CCI said it is not convinced by the reasons stated by ADIF for distinguishing its allegations from the issues examined in previous orders passed by the regulator.
"The issues examined in the previous order may be 'the same' or 'substantially the same'.
"Therefore, the present matter is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of section 26(2A) of the Act," the regulator added.
ADIF had cited four main concerns, including prohibition on third-party technical support advertisements, restrictions on 'Call Ads' on desktops, lack of transparency in ad rankings, and allowing competitors to bid on trademarked keywords.
"All the four instances of alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies as raised by ADIF in the present matter, have already been examined in substance and set to rest by the commission in its previous decisions," the competition watchdog said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Electricity, a ‘public good', must not be vulnerable to ‘undue political posturing', says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has expressed a lack of confidence on whether Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are living up to the independence and autonomy afforded to them under the law. ERCs have the exclusive authority of tariff determination, play a pivotal role in the promotion of competition, and in ensuring reliable power supply across the country. The court said electricity is a 'public good' and a 'material resource', and is especially vulnerable to 'undue political posturing'. The ERCs were meant to serve as a bastion under the Electricity Act of 2003 to ensure that electricity was sold and distributed for the common good, unruffled by the politics of the day, and uninfluenced by the market forces of demand and supply. In an 82-page judgment, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta has, however, questioned the very 'functional autonomy' of the ERCs, while drawing attention to the 'manage and manoeuvre' tactics employed to arrive at tariffs by creating regulatory assets 'over and above all permissible limits' prescribed by the electricity laws. A regulatory asset is adopted as a measure by the Regulatory Commissions when the gap between the revenue required by a power distribution company to meet its costs and expenditure, and the actual revenue realised through immediate tariff, is so high that it would not only prejudice the consumer but lead to what is called a 'tariff shock'. The court noted that, in recent times, ERCs have allowed power distribution companies' regulatory assets to balloon for decades without liquidating them, much to the detriment of the public, who have to bear the ultimate burden of paying more for electricity. This is despite the emphasis in the Electricity Act that the tariff fixed by ERCs must progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity, and reduce cross subsidies. 'This is where the problem lies. Though the Electricity Act envisages functional autonomy for Regulatory Commissions, and the statutory scheme is complete in all respects, the decisions taken by the Commissions, many a time, have not inspired confidence of independence and autonomy. The reasons are not difficult to conceive as there is an issue about the appointment process. The assertion of independence, however, comes through individual volition and that is where the mandate of transparency leads to accountability,' Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, pointed out. The Act requires ERCs to work in cohesion with the State to ensure the supply of affordable power to all sections of society, across regions and terrains. 'But the adverse effect of an overbearing regulatory asset extended beyond proportion is an anathema to good governance of the Electricity Act… The regulatory asset cannot be permitted to balloon into such proportions or continue for such periods, year after year, that the governance of the sector is set in peril, affecting the rights of the utilities and at the same time jeopardising the consumer interest, who eventually end up bearing the burden,' the court noted. Issuing a series of directions, the apex court ordered that regulatory assets must not exceed the reasonable percentage as envisaged in the Electricity Rules. Existing regulatory assets must be liquidated in a maximum of seven years from April 1, 2024, and those created in future must be liquidated in three years from April 1, 2024. The court directed ERCs to provide the roadmap for liquidation of regulatory assets in future, and also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which distribution companies have continued without recovery of their regulatory assets.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
First came the AI talent war. Is a price war next?
OpenAI has unveiled its powerful new model, GPT-5, just days after releasing two open-source models for public use. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called it the 'best model in the world,' but whether it truly is, we're yet to see. However, one area where it is definitely making waves is pricing. As Sam Altman put it, 'Very happy with the pricing we are able to deliver!' he posted on X. GPT-5's API is set at $1.25 per one million input tokens and $10 for one million output tokens, with a small extra cost of $0.125 for cached inputs. This matches the pricing of Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro, which is popular with developers, especially for coding. However, Google charges more once usage crosses 200,000 prompts, making it costlier for heavy comparison, OpenAI is seriously undercutting Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.1, which starts at $15 per one million input tokens and a steep $75 for output. Claude does offer discounts for prompt caching and batch requests, but the base cost is way GPT-5 is also priced lower than GPT-4o. Matt Shumer, CEO of OthersideAI, posted on X, 'It is cheaper than GPT-4o, which is fantastic. Intelligence per dollar continues to increase.'Whether rivals will now cut their prices in response remains to be seen. But for users, a price war would be a blessing. Still, the AI race is expensive. OpenAI has a $30 billion per year cloud deal with Oracle, triple its current annual recurring revenue. Meta is planning to spend up to $72 billion on AI in 2025, while Alphabet is setting aside $85 billion for AI-linked capital expenses next year. Given the size of investments, it's unlikely that huge undercuts would happen. So, while OpenAI's pricing may seem like a miracle and great news for developers, it may be a little early to have high hopes. At least until more companies follow suit.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
First came the AI talent war. Is a price war next?
OpenAI's GPT-5 is priced the same as Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro and lower than GPT-4o. Interestingly, GPT-5 is priced far lower than Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.1. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads OpenAI has unveiled its powerful new model, GPT-5, just days after releasing two open-source models for public CEO Sam Altman called it the 'best model in the world,' but whether it truly is, we're yet to see. However, one area where it is definitely making waves is pricing. As Sam Altman put it, 'Very happy with the pricing we are able to deliver!' he posted on API is set at $1.25 per one million input tokens and $10 for one million output tokens, with a small extra cost of $0.125 for cached inputs. This matches the pricing of Google's Gemini 2.5 Pro, which is popular with developers, especially for Google charges more once usage crosses 200,000 prompts, making it costlier for heavy comparison, OpenAI is seriously undercutting Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.1, which starts at $15 per one million input tokens and a steep $75 for output. Claude does offer discounts for prompt caching and batch requests, but the base cost is way GPT-5 is also priced lower than GPT-4o. Matt Shumer, CEO of OthersideAI, posted on X, 'It is cheaper than GPT-4o, which is fantastic. Intelligence per dollar continues to increase.'Whether rivals will now cut their prices in response remains to be seen. But for users, a price war would be a the AI race is expensive. OpenAI has a $30 billion per year cloud deal with Oracle , triple its current annual recurring revenue. Meta is planning to spend up to $72 billion on AI in 2025, while Alphabet is setting aside $85 billion for AI-linked capital expenses next the size of investments, it's unlikely that huge undercuts would happen. So, while OpenAI's pricing may seem like a miracle and great news for developers, it may be a little early to have high hopes. At least until more companies follow suit.
