Pranav B Prem

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a complaint alleging large-scale anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance in India’s digital ecosystem by several individuals and global technology companies, including Sundar Pichai, Apple LLC, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., and Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.. The competition watchdog held that no prima facie case under the Competition Act, 2002 was made out warranting investigation. The order dated 5 January 2026 was passed by a coram led by Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, along with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag. The Commission concluded that the allegations failed to disclose any contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act, which deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively.

Also Read: CCI Declines To Intervene In Dispute Over AI-Altered Re-Release Of ‘Raanjhanaa’, Finds No Competition Law Violation

The proceedings arose from an information filed by an individual entrepreneur, who alleged that dominant players operating in online search, digital advertising, e-commerce, and digital intermediation markets, along with certain named individuals, were manipulating digital identifiers, suppressing online visibility, and diverting customer traffic and paid advertising leads to competitors. According to the informant, such conduct resulted in denial of market access, unfair discrimination, market allocation, and diversion of business opportunities, causing serious commercial harm and loss of revenue.

The complaint named several prominent technology platforms, e-commerce entities, and individuals, and sought wide-ranging reliefs, including interim directions to restrain the alleged diversion of digital traffic, restore fair access to online marketing and advertising tools, and prevent what was described as malicious interference with the informant’s business relationships. The informant alleged that the cumulative conduct of the opposite parties distorted competition in India’s digital markets.

After examining the material placed on record, the CCI observed that the allegations were vague, general, and unsupported by cogent evidence. The Commission noted that the information failed to clearly attribute any specific role, conduct, or agreement to the numerous opposite parties named in the complaint. It further recorded that the material relied upon by the informant, including screenshots and other documents, was largely illegible and incapable of meaningful scrutiny or verification.

The Commission held that the informant had not demonstrated any nexus between the alleged acts and an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. It observed that mere assertions of harm to an individual business, without establishing anti-competitive conduct affecting the competitive process, do not meet the threshold required for invoking the Commission’s investigative jurisdiction. In the absence of credible pleadings or evidence indicating collusion, abuse of dominance, or exclusionary conduct, the CCI found no basis to order an investigation.

Also Read: CCI Holds Two Textile Firms Guilty Of Bid Rigging In Defence Undergarment Tender

Recording its conclusion, the Commission stated that “upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no prima facie contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.” Accordingly, the complaint was directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.  In view of the closure of the proceedings at the threshold stage, the CCI also rejected the informant’s request for interim relief. The Commission clarified that the allegations, as presented, did not merit intervention under the competition law framework and that no further action was called for in the matter.

Cause Title: Preeti Kodwani vs Sundar Pichai & Ors

Case Number: Case No. 36 of 2025

Coram: Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag