Latest news with #GooglePlayBillingSystem
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
SC admits Google appeal of NCLAT decision in anti-competition case
The Supreme Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) admitted an appeal filed by Alphabet, the parent company of online search engine Google, against a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that partially upheld a Competition Commission of India (CCI) finding that the technology major abused its dominant position in Android device systems to indulge in anti-competitive practices. A Bench headed by Justice P.S. Narasimha also admitted appeals filed by the Competition Commission of India and the Alliance Digital India Foundation, and listed the matter for hearing in November. Google was investigated by the CCI in 2020 for unfair billing practices on Play Store services and for promoting its own payment app, Google Pay. In 2022, the CCI concluded that Google had mandated the use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for app purchases, while exempting its own apps such as YouTube. The regulator imposed a fine of ₹936.44 crore on the company. The company law appellate tribunal, while upholding several of the CCI's findings, reduced the penalty to ₹216.69 crore in a judgment delivered in March this year. In May, the tribunal reintroduced two of the CCI's directions, requiring Google to be transparent about its billing data policies and prohibiting the company from using such data to gain a competitive advantage.
Mint
7 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Supreme Court admits Google, CCI plea against NCLAT order on Android dominance
The Supreme Court accepted appeals from Google, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), and Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF) against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) decision. The NCLAT had partially supported the antitrust authority's findings that Google misused its dominance in the Android ecosystem, according to a report by the Bar and Bench. The technology giant faced allegations of abuse of dominance for enforcing unfair Play Store policies and favouring its own payments app, Google Pay. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar scheduled the matter for hearing in November. The case stems from a CCI probe that began in November 2020 regarding Google's billing practices on the Play Store. In October 2022, the CCI found that Google abused its dominant market position by requiring the use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for app transactions while exempting its own apps, such as YouTube, from comparable commission requirements. A fine of ₹ 936.44 crore was imposed on Google and it was ordered to stop anti-competitive practices, such as permitting third-party billing and promoting data transparency.
Time of India
04-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC stays Madras HC order in Testbook suit against Google Play Store billing
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court 's order that allowed continuation of the proceedings on the Testbook Edu Solutions ' petition against Google India Digital Services ' updated payment policies relating to its proprietary Google Play Store A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stayed the HC's June 11 order that dismissed Google 's petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a court to reject a plaint at the initial HC had dismissed Google's contention that Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The HC had held that Testbook's suit contained contractual issues that fell within its jurisdiction and could not be dismissed on the which operates over 700 mobile applications for government exam preparation, had challenged the search engine giant's Google Play Billing System and User Choice Billing, which mandate service fees ranging from 15% to 30% from application developers. Google's policies amounted to a unilateral novation of its agreement with application developers, and they were contrary to public policy and imposed undue economic duress on the developers, Testbook told the SC that the Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, which expressly ousts civil jurisdiction in respect of matters within the domain of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Further, the allegations concerning the Payment and Settlement Systems Act are solely within the purview of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as the sectoral regulator, it counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Google, said that the single judge of the HC held that the plaint filed by Testbook is maintainable despite the Division Bench of the same HC conclusively ruling that identical claims by other similarly placed parties were barred under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.'The impugned judgment is therefore an outlier decision, rendered contrary to binding precedent, which should be corrected by the SC. It also implicates important issues of principle, including the exclusive scope of the powers of two specialist regulators: the Competition Commission of India and the Reserve Bank of India, conferred by statute. Not only are these exclusive powers important as a matter of regulatory coherence and principle, they also exist to avoid fragmented or inconsistent outcomes and floods of individual suits concerning the same contract: one which the CCI is in fact already examining in a pending investigation,' Google stated in its objected to the maintainability of the connected suits under Order Vll Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, saying the Division Bench had upheld the rejection of the connected suits filed by similarly placed mobile app developers, explicitly holding that claims stemming from allegations of abuse of dominant market position fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the CCI and not that of the civil courts on account of Section 61 of the Competition Act.'The Testbook plaint is materially identical in its allegations, reliefs, and cause of action to these previously rejected connected suits, particularly the plaint filed by another app developer, Nasadiya Technologies,' the tech giant stated.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
04-08-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
SC stays Textbook Edu's plea against Google in billing policy case
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had dismissed Google India's plea against Textbook Edu Solutions. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing Google's appeal against the Madras High Court order of June 11. The High Court had dismissed Google's request to reject a plea by Textbook Edu Solutions challenging Google's new user choice billing policy. The policy required all app developers to use its Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for all transactions, including paid app downloads and in-app purchases. The developers claimed they were charged a commission ranging between 13% and 15%. Although the High Court had dismissed 13 similar suits moved against Google in the past, it refused to reject Textbook Edu's plea, stating that it did not concern Google's superior bargaining position but rather the bilateral contracts between the parties. The High Court had also rejected Google's argument that the issue should be addressed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
PlayStore billing policy: Google appeals NCLAT order in Supreme Court
Google approached the Supreme Court on July 21 Almost three years after the Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that Google leveraged its dominance in the Android ecosystem, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) partially upheld the order later, the matter has now reached the Supreme Court with the US technology giant challenging the appellate tribunal's ruling. Google approached the Supreme Court on July 21. On March 28 this year, NCLAT partially upheld the CCI ruling against Google for misuse of its dominant position by imposing unfair Play Store policies and promoting its own payments app. The appellate tribunal had said that Google shall allow, and not restrict app developers from using any third party billing services; shall not impose any anti-steering provisions on app developers or restrict them from communicating with their users to promote their apps; and shall not discriminate against other apps facilitating payment through Unified Payments Interface (UPI) in India vis-à-vis its own UPI app, in any manner. The NCLAT, however, overruled several of the more stringent behavioural remedies imposed on Google by the CCI. The CCI had, in its ruling, asked Google to allow third-party app stores within the Play Store, uninstallation of pre-installed apps, and side-loading of apps. In May this year, NCLAT reinstated two CCI directions that obligated Google to disclose data policies and remove advantages for Google Play Billing System (GPBS). In the petition moved now in the apex court, Google has challenged the changes approved by the NCLAT in May.
