Pranav B Prem

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), by a majority decision, has accepted a settlement proposal from Google in a case concerning abuse of dominance in the Android TV market. The order, passed by a Bench led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, with Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag concurring, accepted Google’s proposal under the newly notified Settlement Regulations, and imposed a settlement amount of ₹20.24 crore. However, Member Anil Agrawal issued a strong dissent, recommending outright rejection of the proposal.

The case, initiated in 2020 on complaints by advocates Kshitiz Arya and Purushottam Anand, involved allegations that Google had abused its dominant position in the markets for licensable smart TV operating systems and app stores for Android smart TVs in India. The Commission found prima facie evidence of anti-competitive conduct and ordered an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.

Also Read: NCLAT New Delhi Rules, Section 12A Application Not Mandatory If No Other Creditors Are Involved & Settlement Is Reached

The Director General (DG), in its report, concluded that Google was dominant in both relevant markets and had abused this dominance. Among the violations highlighted were the mandatory pre-installation of the Google TV Services suite through the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA), tying of the YouTube app with the Play Store, and the imposition of Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) that restricted OEMs from developing devices based on Android forks.

The DG specifically found that these practices limited technical development, denied market access, and imposed unfair conditions, thereby violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(ii), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d), and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act.

In response, Google filed a settlement application in May 2024 under Section 48A of the Act and the 2024 Settlement Regulations. Under the proposed terms, Google offered to:

1. Introduce a new "New India Agreement" allowing OEMs to license the Google Play Store and Google Play Services separately, without the obligation to pre-install other Google applications.

2. Waive the requirement under TADA to sign ACC for devices sold in India that do not include Google apps.

3. Remind OEMs of their existing right to use open-source Android or other competing OSs like Tizen and WebOS.

Google committed to maintaining these settlement terms for a period of five years and to submitting annual compliance reports.

While evaluating the proposal, the CCI considered responses from various stakeholders, including the DG, Informants, OEMs such as Xiaomi and TCL, and third parties like Mozilla, Microsoft, and Netflix. The DG noted that the proposed changes were relevant, though it remained unclear whether OEMs could effectively develop and distribute Android forks. Informants, however, argued that the five-year period was insufficient and that the proposal did not adequately address all competitive concerns, including pre-installation mandates and uninstall restrictions.

Despite these concerns, the majority of the Commission accepted the settlement, citing that the proposal sufficiently addressed the DG’s findings. The CCI emphasized that the New India Agreement offered OEMs flexibility and market choice, including the ability to pre-install only the Play Store and not other Google apps like YouTube, which was previously bundled.

The Commission also noted that while the New India Agreement involved a licensing fee, it could not function as a price regulator. OEMs were free to offset such costs through promotional arrangements with third-party app developers.

However, dissenting Member Anil Agrawal expressed serious reservations. He observed that the continuation of the existing TADA—allegedly anti-competitive—alongside the new agreement was problematic. According to him, offering a fee-based, unbundled option while retaining a free, restrictive agreement created an uneven playing field and did not dismantle the existing dominance structure.

He also pointed out that the proposal failed to address several issues raised in the DG's report, including tying of YouTube, requirement of placement of Google’s designated button on physical and mobile remotes, and the continued suppression of forked Android OS development. Agrawal concluded: “The Settlement Proposal does not eliminate existing arrangements under TADA which have been prima facie found to be contravening the provisions of the Act… It fails to inspire confidence and merits unequivocal rejection.”

Also Read: NGT Considers Expert Suggestion to Regulate Horse Population for Protecting Matheran’s Ecology

Despite the dissent, the majority of the Commission proceeded to determine the settlement amount based on the relevant turnover of Google’s Android TV operations in India. Rejecting Google’s plea to exclude revenue from YouTube and the Play Store, the CCI applied the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024, to compute the base amount. A 15% settlement discount was applied under the Settlement Regulations, resulting in a final settlement amount of ₹20.24 crore.

Google formally accepted the amount and deposited it on April 8, 2025. The CCI directed Google to implement the settlement proposal in line with its timeline and to file annual compliance reports for the next five years. It further warned that any non-compliance, false disclosure, or material change in facts would result in revocation of the settlement order.

Cause Title: Kshitiz Arya V. Google LLC & 3 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]