Read Time: 04 minutes
The Court held that the issue fell under the purview of the Competition Commission of India
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed the majority of petitions submitted by Indian startups challenging Google's new user choice billing system.
Out of the 16 petitions filed, 14 have been dismissed, while the remaining two petitions, moved by Disney+Hotstar and Testbook, are pending.
The single judge bench of Justice S Sounthar, while passing the order on August 3rd, asserted that the jurisdiction for this matter lies with the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
The court highlighted that the remedies available under the Competition Act are much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court
Moreover, the court cited Section 61 of the Competition Act, which explicitly restricts civil courts from adjudicating on matters that fall under the purview of the Commission.
Apart that, court dismissed Google's plea to dismiss the complaints and its assertion that the petitions should be submitted in California, where the company's headquarters are situated.
Accepting such contention would render the purpose of the Competition Act, designed to curb practices that impede fair competition, ineffective, said the court.
Before the high court, the startups had submitted that in 2020, Google enforced the compulsory and exclusive utilization of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for handling payments related to the download of paid apps and In-App Purchases.
On October 25, 2022, the CCI issued an order instructing Google to refrain from imposing limitations on app developers in utilizing third-party billing or payment processing services, startups had stated.
However, they had alleged that subsequent to the CCI order, Google, in an effort to work around it, authorized app developers to employ the "Alternative Billing System/User Choice Billing" longside and in addition to the GPBS.
The companies had claimed that Google was trying to benefit from it its monopoly in the Android market and compelling app developers to agree to its payment policy.
Case Title: Matrimony.Com Ltd v Alphabet Inc and others (and connected cases)
Please Login or Register
