CCI Orders Probe into Google’s RMG Practices for Prima Facie Competition Law Violations

Introduction

In the case of Winzo Games (P.) Ltd. In re[i], the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) has ordered a detailed investigation into Google LLC and its affiliates – Alphabet Inc., Google India Pvt. Ltd., and Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. (‘Google’) following allegations of anti-competitive conduct made by Winzo Games Private Limited (‘Informant’). The informant alleged that Google’s selective implementation of its Play Store’s Real Money Gaming (‘RMG’) Pilot Program unfairly favoured only Daily Fantasy Sports (‘DFS’) and Rummy apps, thereby discriminating against other RMG platforms. The CCI, upon review, found prima facie evidence of violations under ss. 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’). The CCI highlighted concerns around Google’s platform policies, such as its gatekeeping role, restrictions on advertisements, sideloading warnings, and transaction risk flags, which were seen to potentially distort market access and competitiveness for rival app developers. This case highlights growing concerns about platform neutrality and abuse of dominance in India’s evolving digital economy.   

Brief Facts

• The present information was filed under s. 19(1)(a) of the Act by the Informant, which operates an online digital gaming platform under its trademark and brand name ‘Winzo’.

• The Informant alleged that Google, through its Play Store, imposes unfair terms and discriminatory practices on application developers. To list applications on the Play Store, the developers must accept Google’s one-sided Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA) and Developer Program Policies (DPP), which the Informant claimed are unreasonable.

• A key concern raised was Google’s restriction on hosting RMGs' application in India, forcing developers to offer downloads exclusively through sideloading. This process involves multiple steps and triggers security warnings, deterring non-tech-savvy users and limiting app reach.

• The Informant also alleged that Google arbitrarily displays warnings on its payment gateway (Google Pay) when users attempt transactions related to skill-based games. These warnings, such as flagging payments as ‘risky’ or ‘unusually high’, lack clear criteria and negatively impact the Informant’s business and user trust.

• On 07.09.2022, Google introduced a Pilot Program allowing only two types of RMGs on its Play Store, i.e., DFS and Rummy in India, for a period of 1 year, i.e., from 28.09.2022 to 28.09.2023.  Other RMG apps, including Informants, remained excluded without adequate justification.

• The Informant further alleged that Google enforced this Pilot Program through its advertising platform (Google Ads), permitting only DFS Rummy apps to advertise via Google Ads and YouTube. This exclusion prevented platforms like Informant from accessing India’s dominant digital advertising channels, adversely affecting their visibility and user acquisition.

• Effective 21.11.2022, Google’s revised ad policy explicitly restricted ad placements to DFS and Rummy apps. Google defended its decision, stating the policy was uniformly applied and subject to compliance checks. It cited internal dashboard data showing non-compliant DFS/Rummy ads (eg, MPL and Zupee) being flagged.

• The Informant argued that Google’s conduct constituted an abuse of its dominant position in three relevant markets: (i) licensable mobile operating systems, (ii) app stores on such operating systems, and (iii) online search advertising services. It claimed Google’s actions created entry barriers, reduced competition, and discriminated against RMG platforms.

• In response, Google cited regulatory ambiguity and legal fragmentation surrounding online gaming in India. It contended that its policies were guided by public safety concerns, consistently applied, and shaped by evolving legal frameworks, including the designation of Self-Regulatory Bodies (‘SRBs’) under the amended Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Rules).

Held

• The CCI prima facie accepted the Informant’s delineation of three relevant markets:

  • Licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India;

  • App stores on devices with licensable OS

  • Online search advertising services

• Google was found to be dominant in all three markets, relying on prior precedents including:

  • Google Android Case[ii]

  • Google Play case[iii] ;

  • Matrimony.com v. Google LLC [iv]

• Listing of RMG Apps on the Play Store (Part A):

  • The CCI acknowledged that ‘games of skill’ are legally protected business activities under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and judicial precedents.

  • However, due to pending adjudication of the Informant in the Delhi High Court regarding SRB certification, the CCI refrained from intervention on this ground at this stage.

• Pilot Program Limiting Access to DFS and Rummy (Part B):

  • CCI found the criteria for inclusion in the Pilot opaque and inconsistent, lacking transparency and not objectively substantiated by data.

  • The prolonged duration of the Pilot Program, now extended beyond June 2024 without a termination date, was held to confer persistent advantages to DFS and Rummy apps, entrenching their market position.

  • CCI held that this selective onboarding amounts to a denial of market access, imposition of unfair conditions and restriction of the technical development of excluded RMG apps.

• Google Ads Policy (Part C):

  • Google’s restriction of ad access to only DFS and Rummy apps, especially when 68% of the Informants' users installed their app from Google Ads, was held to undermine visibility and user acquisition for excluded apps. The CCI found this conduct prima facie discriminatory, creating an uneven playing field and violating ss. 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act.

• Google Warnings on Sideloading (Part D):

  • Given that the NCLAT had already upheld the legality of such warnings and that the issue is sub judice before the Supreme Court, the CCI chose not to intervene.

• Payment Warnings:

  • Although Google claimed these were generic fraud prevention measures, the selective display of warnings for certain apps (excluding DFS/Rummy) warranted investigation into their potential anti-competitive effect.

• The commission directed the Director General to investigate violations under ss. 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act, particularly concerning: (i) the design and implementation of the RMG Pilot Program; (ii) the Google Ads policy restricting ad access to non-DFS/Rummy RMGs and (iii) the display of payment warnings on Google Pay.

Our Analysis

The CCI’s decision to investigate Google’s conduct under the Act highlighted the growing concerns regarding market dominance and anti-competitive practices in the digital ecosystem. The allegations raised by the Informant highlight how Google’s selective implementation of the RMG pilot program, restrictive advertising policies, and warning mechanisms may have created artificial entry barriers, limited market access, and provided undue advantage to certain gaming platforms.

The Commission’s prima facie findings establish that Google holds a dominant position in key digital markets, including licensable mobile operating systems, app stores, and online search advertising. The prolonged duration of the Pilot Program, Google’s selective application of warnings, and its control over advertising avenues further raise concerns about unfair trade practices and market distortion.

While Google has defended its policies by citing regulatory ambiguities and consumer protection concerns, the lack of transparency and the prolonged advantages conferred upon select RMG platforms necessitate a detailed investigation. The CCI’s directive to the Director General for an in-depth inquiry signals a firm stance against potential abuse of dominance, ensuring a competitive and fair marketplace. The outcome of this investigation will be crucial in determining the boundaries of platform neutrality and the responsibilities of dominant digital players in India’s evolving digital economy.

End Notes

[i] [2024] 168 taxmann.com 687 (CCI)[28-11-2024].

[ii] 2022 SCC Online CCI 61.

[iii] 2022 SCC Online CCI 63.

[iv] 2018 SCC Online CCI 1.

Authored by Manmohan Bhola, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.