The required tightening

Update: 2022-10-27 03:12 GMT

Within a week of imposing a provisional fine of Rs 1,337 crore, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has slapped another fine of Rs 936 crore on Google for "abusing its dominant position" in the Android market. The intervention by India's anti-trust regulator is in sync with the actions taken by similar authorities in the European Union and the United States, and the flagged issues carry significant weight. The prime motive is to break the monopoly of Google in various segments of Android market — allowing the entry of other players whose potential remains subdued. The CCI had, on October 22, also issued a "cease-and-desist order" — directing Google to modify its conduct within three months. In essence, the Android market might see an opening of sorts for lesser-known players in the near future. Incidentally, this development coincides with the advent of 5G in India, which is expected to usher in sweeping technological changes. While the fixing of the Google monopoly is a right thing, at this juncture, a fair degree of caution will also be required. The role of a well-crafted data protection policy framework cannot be stressed more at this point in time. It may be hard to draw a correlation between competition laws and data policy in theory but, on practical grounds, mutual ramifications exist. Nevertheless, absence of a comprehensive data policy framework cannot be poised as a roadblock in the path of anti-trust regulations against Google. The dominance of the Alphabet-owned company in the Android and related market is unquestionable. In fact, it is rather unfortunate that antitrust regulators across the world are taking cognizance of its monopoly this late. Google had acquired Android operating system (OS) way back in 2005. And today, 97 per cent of India's smartphones are powered by Google's Android OS — the rest of the share goes to Apple IOS. Google not just manages the Android OS; it also grants licenses of Google proprietary applications such as Chrome and Play Store to smartphone manufacturing companies. In order to avail the licenses, manufacturers have to enter into a range of agreements including Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) and Revenue Sharing Agreement (RSA), among many others. These agreements impose the use of Google's Android system upon smartphone manufacturers if they wish to avail applications like Play Store. Furthermore, under the MADA restrictions, users get pre-installed YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Mobile Suite (GMS) etc. on their android devices. These pre-installed applications cannot be un-installed by the users — whether or not they are content with the services. This has double ramifications. In the first place, it restricts users' right to choose and, secondly, it leaves little space for alternate service providers to distribute their applications. Apart from this, the CCI also flagged the overwhelming dominance of Google in the app store market for Android OS, revenue earning through YouTube, search market etc. Importantly, the CCI raised serious concerns around "making access to the Play Store dependent on mandatory usage of GPBS (Google Play Billing System) for paid apps and in-app purchases" — terming it to be one-sided and arbitrary. Notably, the CCI had initiated a probe in this regard way back in November 2020. In its most recent order, the CCI has directed Google to allow the use of any third-party billing services by app developers. The issues raised by the CCI are indeed concerning, and need to be fixed by the earliest. The anti-trust regulator, in its order dated October 22, gave clear-cut directions to Google to introduce radical changes in its operation in India. The changes include allowing access to Google's proprietary application to alternate Android versions, de-linking the licensing of Play Store from pre-installation of Google apps, allowing uninstallation of Google apps and permitting users greater freedom during the set-up process. Google should also provide the financial details and supporting documents sought by CCI within stipulated time. The CCI could not have been more direct in its approach. If CCI's move is expected to herald the entry of new players in the discussed Android market segments, then the government must also be ready with safeguards to ensure protection of public data. In totality, the CCI has come up with the much-needed tightening, but a bit of caution may be needed.

Similar News

Pre-Poll Purge

Inhaling the Lie

Voter Rights Battle

Wake-up call

An Envious Blueprint?

Unnecessary (Un)settling

For a Fairer Tomorrow

Sailing through the Tides

Managing a Rising Tide

An Imperative Red Line

Flight of Aspirations