CCI remedies lack analysis, do not correspond with findings of infringement

Wrapping up its submissions in the Android appeal, Google on Wednesday submitted to NCLAT that the “remedies” directed by the competition watchdog do not correspond with findings on infringement and lack basis in any analysis done by the Commission.

On the eighth day of submissions on the trot before the NCLAT, Google Counsel Arun Kathpalia said that CCI could not have directed Google to list third-party app stores through Play Store, since it was an Ultra-Vires direction. Section 27 requires a finding/infringement before a direction can be issued and there was no such finding, it was submitted.

Google has a strenuous security mechanism to ensure that apps listed in Play Store are not malicious or a risk. Allowing third-party app stores will open up Android to malicious apps listed on an unsecured third party App Store, it was submitted.

Similarly, Google contended that the CCI directive on allowing side loading was ultra vires directive as Section 27 requires a finding/infringement before a direction can be issued and there was no finding on this front.

CCI could not have permitted side-loading without warning to users, Google added. It was submitted that Apple also does not permit side loading —permitted from October 2023 onwards.

CCI itself has conceded that side-loading of App Store or apps involves the risk of malware (in the context of the dominance of Play Store), Google added.

Also, CCI has wrongly held that Google shall not deny access to its Play Service APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app developers, and its existing potential competitors.

Google counsel also came up with reasons as to why CCI could not have directed Google to not restrict uninstallation, and also came up with arguments to show why CCI could not have directed Google to unbundle apps .

CCI Counsel N Venkatraman, Additional Solicitor General of India, will start presenting arguments from the CCI side on Thursday. The Hindu BusinessLine