Madras High Court Dismisses 14 Petitions Against Google's Billing Policy, Says Matter Falls Within CCI's Domain

Dismissing the petitions, Justice S Sounthar on August 3 said that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. The court added that the pleas are barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act which expressly forbids civil courts from hearing any lawsuit or action that the Commission is authorised to decide.

The court, however, rejected Google's application to reject the plaints and its contention that the applications should be filed in California, where the company has its headquarters. The court said that if such a contention is accepted, the Competition Act, which was enacted to prevent practices affecting competition, will be of no use.

The startups had argued that in 2020, Google made the use of Google Play Billing System "GPBS" mandatory and exclusive for processing payments for downloading paid apps and In-App Purchases.

It was further submitted that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by its order dated October 25, 2022, had directed Google not to restrict the app developers from using any third-party billing/payment processing services. It was submitted that after the CCI order, Google in an attempt to circumvent the order, permitted the app developers to use “Alternative Billing System/User Choice Billing” alongside and in addition to the GPBS.

The companies added that Google has been trying to take advantage of its monopoly in the Android platform and compelling app developers to agree to their payment policy by charging service fees at the rate of 11% and 26% in respect of payments made through the Alternate Billing System.

The court had previously granted interim relief to Matrimony.com by ordering Google not to remove/delist its app from Google's play store.

Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 222

Case No: C.S(COMM DIV) 98 of 2023