T-7

FERA Act, 1999

 Case Study
Competition Commission of India
v/s Google
Overview:
On July 1,2019
the Competition Commission of India
(CCI) ordered a probe into Google’s
market practices — that it misused
its dominant position in the market
to ensure that Android phones came
pre-installed with Google apps.
 What is the case?
• The CCI launched a probe into Google’s practices as regards Android phones
and Google apps.
• The complainants in the case accused Google of engaging in anti-competitive
practices. This case, which has been with the CCI since 2012, began as a case
against the internet conglomerate’s “unfair” search results.
• The CCI found that Google is misusing its position by search manipulation
and bias, and denying access to competitive products.

• The CCI is also looking into Google’s agreements with Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs). The body is trying to find if there is any misuse of the
market. OEMs have been given two weeks to respond.
 Has this happened before?
• This case is similar to the European Commission antitrust one which
ended with a $5 billion fine on the search giant.

• In the European case, which concluded in 2018, the Commission was

of the view that Google “preserved and strengthened its market
position by implementing a strategy on mobile devices”.

• The company had pre-installed Google Search on Android devices,

thereby making it the default search service.
 Why is this wrong?
• This breached the European Union’s antitrust rules.
• The Commission found that Google required manufacturers to
pre-install Google Search and Chrome browser on their devices.
• Google also prevented manufacturers from selling devices
running on competing OS based on the Android open source
code.
• This Commission order was after the same body fined Google
$2.7 billion in 2017 for manipulating search results to give its
own products primacy.
 Is this the first such case in
India?
• Last year, Google was slapped with a fine of ₹136 crore for the same
reason as the 2017 European Commission order. Passing the order on
complaints that were filed back in 2012, the regulator said the penalty is
being imposed on Google for “infringing anti-trust conduct”.
• The penalty amount of ₹135.86 crore translates to 5% of the company’s
average total revenue generated from India operations from its different
business segments for the financial years 2013, 2014 and 2015, according
to the CCI order.
• Google appealed against the order, and the NCLAT has stayed it.
CCI rules out cartelisation among steel
producers (2014-16)
• Overview
• Competition Commission has closed the case of alleged unfair trade
practices against steel producers, including SAIL, RINL and Tata Steel,
following insufficient evidence of cartelisation in hiking prices.

• The case, which dates back to 2008, was first probed by the erstwhile
MRTP Commission that has been replaced by Competition
Commission of India (CCI).
• Process and Decision

• CCI’s latest order, dated January 9,2014 but released on Monday, has
been finalised after it asked the Director General (DG) to carry out
investigations related to the case twice. The case pertains to alleged
cartelisation by various steel producers including Tata Steel and JSW
Steel, and state-run entities - SAIL and RINL.

“... Sufficient evidence has not been brought on record to establish a

finding of contravention (of the Competition Act) against the opposite
parties. In such a scenario, the Commission deems it appropriate to
order closure of the case,”
the CCI order said.
• The investigation by CCI’s Director General (DG) “did not find evidence
indicative of anti-competitive conduct by the steel producers in the
segment of HR coil, during the period of investigation 2007-08 to 2009-10.

• CCI said that “though the DG found the steel production market
oligopolistic and hence susceptible to concerted price fixation, it may be
observed that existence of such conducive scenario for cartelisation in
itself is not enough to reach a finding of contravention against the
parties“.

• Among others, the fair trade regulator citing replies from consumers of
steel products noted that “the prices are determined after negotiation
with the suppliers“.
• Back in 2008, the MRTP Commission had probed 34 steel companies after
taking cognisance of media reports that these entities, including state-
owned enterprises, had raised the steel prices without any justification.
There was also a complaint alleged cartelisation among steel makers filed by
Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC).

• MRTP Commission was set up under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, which has been replaced by Competition Act under which CCI
functions in 2009. CCI, after considering material available in the case,
ordered probe by its investigation arm - Director General (DG) - in June 2010
after finding prima facie evidence of anti-competitive practices.
• The DG probe, initially, looked into four major steel producers - RINL, SAIL,
Tata Steel and JSW Steel. The first investigation had found these firms in
violation of fair trade rules on account of various issues, including informal
pacts for determining sale prices and controlling production.

• However, in the wake of finding certain “flaws in the methodology adopted in

investigating the case”, another probe was ordered. The second investigation
also looked into the activities of many other steel companies including Essar
Steel, JSPL and Ispat Industries.
Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors
• It was alleged by the Informant that these e-commerce websites have
been indulging in anti-competitive practices in the nature of
“exclusive agreements” with seller of goods/services. The Informant
stated that owing to such practices, the consumer was left with no
option in regards to terms of purchase and price of the goods and
services and was bound to either purchase the product as per the
terms of the website or opt not to purchase the product in totality.
• Whether the practice of entering into exclusive agreement for sale
and purchase of goods by way of e-commerce is violating the
provisions?
Ans:
• It was held that an exclusive arrangement between manufacturers
and e-portals is not against Section 3 (Anti-competitive agreements).
It is rather to help the consumer make an informed choice.
 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V
Link: Bdw80t9p6I&list=PLJumA3phskPH5YoB
cfqxge34jimmM72XO&index=108&t=1
98s
• Title, extent and commencement
 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=21pGXrRMMNQ&list=PLJumA3phskP
H5YoBcfqxge34jimmM72XO&index=11
Link : 1&t=0s
• Establishment of tribunal and its
powers.
 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=gFkCCrU-
6Ok&list=PLJumA3phskPH5YoBcfqxge34ji
mmM72XO&index=115&t=0s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=bO_1t1THrtI&list=PLJumA3phskPH5Yo
Bcfqxge34jimmM72XO&index=117&t=0s
Link : • https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=dOzJF4wivuY&list=PLJumA3phskPH5Yo
Bcfqxge34jimmM72XO&index=118&t=0s
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mx3erjHpF9Q&list=PLJumA3phskPH5Y
oBcfqxge34jimmM72XO&index=119&t=0
s
THANK
YOU