subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now
The Google logo is seen at a Google Store in Manhattan, New York, US. File photo: ANDREW KELLY/REUTERS
The Google logo is seen at a Google Store in Manhattan, New York, US. File photo: ANDREW KELLY/REUTERS

New Delhi — India’s supreme court on Thursday declined a request from Google which sought to block an antitrust order which forces it to change how it markets its Android platform, dealing a blow to the US company in a big growth market.

The Competition Commission of India fined Alphabet-owned Google $161m for exploiting its dominant position in Android, which powers 97% of smartphones in India, and asked it to change restrictions imposed on smartphone makers related to pre-installing apps.

Google challenged the directive in the supreme court, saying it would hurt consumers and also its business, warning the growth of the Android ecosystem could stall.

A three-judge bench of the court, which included the chief justice of India, extended the implementation date of the Competition Commission’s directives by a week beyond January 19, but declined to block the ruling despite Google’s repeated requests.

It asked a lower tribunal, which is hearing the matter, to decide on Google’s challenge by March 31.

Google has been concerned about the Indian decision as the remedies ordered are seen as more sweeping than the European Commission’s landmark 2018 ruling for imposing unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google has challenged the record $4.3bn fine in that case.

Google licenses its Android system to smartphone makers, but critics say it imposes restrictions such as mandatory pre-installation of its own apps that are anticompetitive. The company argues such agreements help keep Android free.

Google said in its India filings that “no other jurisdiction has ever asked for such far-reaching changes”.

Google had also argued in its legal filings, that the Competition Commission’s investigation unit “copy-pasted extensively from a European Commission decision, deploying evidence from Europe that was not examined in India”.

“We have not cut, copy and pasted,” N Venkataraman, a government lawyer representing the commission, told the court.

Reuters 

subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.