Google settles Android TV antitrust case in India with Rs 20 crore penalty, read the company’s statement here
Google has agreed to pay a Rs 20.2 crore penalty to settle an And...
Read More
Google has agreed to pay a Rs 20.2 crore penalty to settle an Android TV matter with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) after being found in a dominant position abuse. The 'New India Agreement' allows separate licenses for Play Store and Play Services on Android TVs, removing bundling requirements for manufacturers.
Read Less
has agreed to pay a penalty of Rs 20.2 crore to settle an Android TV matter with the Competition Commission of India (CCI). This comes after the competition watchdog found a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position by the tech giant. As part of the settlement (that Google applied under Section 48A of the Competition Act), the company has agreed to a 'New India Agreement'. This will allow Google to offer separate licences for the Play Store and Play Services on Android smart TVs in India. The latest agreement will even remove the need for TV manufacturers to bundle these licences or set default placement rules. The latest settlement follows previous penalties imposed on the company by the CCI in cases related to its Play Store policies and dominance in the Android mobile ecosystem.
Tired of too many ads?
What Google said about the CCI settlement
Confirming its decision to settle with the CCI, the company said:
“Google is committed to abiding by applicable local laws in every country where we operate and are grateful to the CCI for the opportunity to engage and present our case. We also thank the CCI for instituting processes which enable constructive engagements between companies and the market, allowing for continued investment and growth.”The case began with a complaint filed by Kshitiz Arya and Purushottam Anand under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. It was directed against Google LLC, Google India Pvt Ltd, Xiaomi Technology India, and TCL India Holding, alleging that Google had violated provisions of the Act by using its dominant position to impose restrictive agreements on TV manufacturers.