Play Store Payment Policy: Karnataka High Court Extends Interim Order Restraining CCI From Divulging Confidential Information Of Google

This is in light of the fact that CCI is currently probing if Google employs anti-competitive measures to require developers distributing their apps through Play Store to use Google Play's billing system and to pay 15-30% on the sale of digital goods as a service fee. CCI had reportedly found the tech giant guilty of adopting anti-competitive, unfair and restrictive trade practices in the mobile operating system and related markets.

A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit said, "Whatever order is passed on May 10, to continue till the next date of hearing."

The vacation court had on May 10, said, "After hearing the parties briefly It would be appropriate to ensure that confidential information is not shared with respondent no 2 and is directed to be subject to further consideration. The Commission to stay its hand as regards to subsequent further representation made by the petitioners relating to the same aspect."

It added, "It is further clarified that petitioner is required to adhere to timeliness as regards proceedings pending before the Competition Commission of India."

The company has approached the court after an order was passed by the Commission dated April 18, allowing the company's confidential information to be shared with the respondent 2.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the company had relied on regulation 35 (8) of the the Competition Commission of India (General) Amendment Regulations, 2022, submitted that, "The CCI in its order dated 18-04-2022 has permitted divulging of confidential information to the respondent 2, which is contrary to the regulations."

Further it was said, "Regulation 35 (6) be read and harmoniously interpreted with regulation 35 (8), which is an overriding provision." It was also contended that in light of the confidential information, whether the requisites of 35 (8) have been fulfilled by CCI, by applying its mind and recording its finding in terms of the conditions being fulfilled is a matter that is to be decided by this court.

Advocate Abir Roy appearing for the respondent no 2, had said, "The undertaking given under regulation 35 (7) by him is a solemn undertaking given which they are bound by and needs to be taken note off." Roy even raised the question of maintainability of the petition.

Case Title: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & others versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others

Case No: WP 9399/2022