CCI Approves ₹20.24 Crore Settlement by Google in Android TV Antitrust Case; Dissent Flags Continuing Concerns
Pranav B Prem
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in a majority order delivered on April 21, 2025, accepted a ₹20.24 crore settlement proposal submitted by Google LLC in a case concerning allegations of anti-competitive practices in the Android TV ecosystem. The case was heard by a four-member bench comprising Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag. The decision was passed by majority, with Mr. Anil Agrawal dissenting.
The matter originated from an information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 by two individuals, alleging that Google LLC (OP-1), Google India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), and TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (OP-4) had engaged in anti-competitive conduct. The informants claimed that Google imposed restrictive conditions on smart TV manufacturers through its Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA) and Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC), thereby violating Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It was alleged that these agreements prevented OEMs from developing and marketing Android forks and forced bundling of applications such as YouTube with the Google Play Store. The informants further argued that such practices limited market access for competing services and restricted innovation.
Pursuant to a prima facie finding, the Commission had directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the matter. The DG delineated two relevant product markets: the market for licensable smart TV operating systems in India and the market for app stores for Android smart TV OS in India. Google was found to be dominant in both markets. The DG concluded that mandatory pre-installation of the entire suite of Google applications under TADA constituted an unfair condition, violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(d) of the Act. It was further found that ACC obligations, which made access to the Play Store conditional on signing restrictive compatibility terms, effectively denied market access to alternative Android forks, in violation of Sections 4(2)(b)(ii), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(d). Additionally, the bundling of YouTube with the Play Store was held to amount to tying, falling foul of Section 4(2)(e). However, the DG did not find sufficient evidence to sustain allegations of refusal to deal and exclusive supply under Section 3(4).
During the pendency of proceedings, Google filed a settlement application under Section 48A of the Act read with the Competition Commission of India (Settlement) Regulations, 2024. In its proposal, Google committed to implementing a New India Agreement, which would allow OEMs to obtain a standalone license for Google Play Store and Google Play Services without any bundling or placement/default app requirements. It also proposed waiving the TADA requirement of ACC compliance for devices not shipped with Google apps. Additionally, Google undertook to send letters to OEMs, reminding them of their ability to use open-source Android OS or alternative platforms such as Tizen, WebOS, and Roku.
Google agreed to discontinue certification of new Android TV models under TADA from July 1, 2025, and committed to continue support for existing devices through 2029. The proposal was to remain in force for five years, with Google submitting annual compliance reports to the CCI by April 15 of each year. Google also deposited a settlement amount of ₹20.24 crore, which was calculated based on its relevant turnover from Android TV-related activities in India, after applying a 15% settlement discount.
The Commission, by majority, found that the settlement proposal was fair, reasonable, and adequate. It noted that the commitments offered by Google addressed the anti-competitive concerns identified in the DG’s investigation, particularly those relating to the mandatory pre-installation of the Google application suite and the bundling of YouTube with the Play Store. The Commission observed that the proposal ensured OEM flexibility, reduced foreclosure risks, and maintained regulatory oversight through yearly compliance reporting. The majority found no misrepresentation or concealment of material facts by Google during the settlement process.
However, Member Anil Agrawal issued a dissenting opinion. He took the view that the continued parallel existence of TADA alongside the New India Agreement meant that anti-competitive conditions could persist. He noted that the proposal did not adequately address issues related to mandatory button placement on remote controls and continued bundling concerns. He emphasized that the New India Agreement did not amount to a complete modification of TADA and would not prevent the continuation of abusive conduct. He stated that the settlement application failed to resolve all identified competition concerns and should have been rejected.
Ultimately, the Commission by majority accepted the settlement application, directed Google to implement the settlement terms according to its declared timelines, and mandated the submission of annual compliance reports. It also confirmed the payment of ₹20.24 crore as the settlement amount.
Cause Title: Kshitiz Arya V. Google LLC & Ors.
Case No: Case No. 19 of 2020
Coram: Ms. Ravneet Kaur [Chairperson], Mr. Anil Agrawal [Member], Ms. Sweta Kakkad [Member], Mr. Deepak Anurag [Member]
[Read/Download order]
