India fines Google $162 million for anti-competitive practices on Android • TechCrunch

0

India’s antitrust watchdog fined Google $161.9 million on Thursday for anti-competitive practices related to Android mobile devices in “multiple markets” in a major setback for the search giant in the key overseas region.

The Competition Commission of India, which began investigating Google several years ago after complaints from local companies, He said in order For Google to require device manufacturers to pre-install the entire Google Mobile Suite and to oblige them to prominently place such applications “amounts to imposing an unfair status on device manufacturers, and thus contravenes the provisions of Section 4(2)(a) (i) of the law “.

The order is also found:

Google has maintained its dominant position in the online search market resulting in the denial of market access to competing search applications in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.

Google has taken advantage of its dominant position in the Android App Store market to protect its position in public online search in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.

Google has taken advantage of its dominant position in the Android App Store market to enter as well as protect its position in the non-OS web browser market through the Google Chrome app and thus violates the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Representation.

Google has taken advantage of its dominant position in the Android App Store market to enter as well as protect its position in the market of OVHPs through YouTube and thus violates the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.

Google, by making pre-installation of proprietary Google apps (particularly the Google Play Store) conditional on the AFA/ACC signature of all Android devices manufactured/distributed/marketed by device manufacturers, has reduced the ability and incentive for device manufacturers to develop and sell devices that run on Alternative versions of Android, that is, Android forks and thus limit technical or scientific development to harming consumers, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(2) of the Act.

(more to follow)

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.