Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC and Ors. is a 2019 court case in which Google and Google India Private Limited were accused of abuse of dominance in the Android operating system in India. The Competition Commission of India found that Google abused its dominant position by requiring device manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps to adhere to a compatibility standard on Android.
Plaintiffs
In 2018, Aaqib Javeed was briefly an intern with the Competition Commission of India, New Delhi while studying law at the University of Kashmir. He was due to graduate in 2019.
Sukarma Thapar was working as a research associate at Competition Commission of India. She postgraduated from the NALSAR in 2016.
Umar Javeed was working as a research associate at the Competition Commission of India, New Delhi. In 2014, he graduated from the University of Kashmir.
Allegations
Google has signed mobile application distribution agreements (MADAs) with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of Android. Under this agreement OEMs of Android were required to pre-install all the Google Applications (GApps) and Google Services in Android devices before shipping/distributing them to the Indian market.
Google Apps are smartphone applications and Google Services are proprietary application programming interface (API) services, collectively referred to as Google mobile services (GMS) which includes a number of bundled apps and services: Google Play, Google Search, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail, Google Drive, Google Chrome, Google Play Music, Google Play Movies, Hangouts, Google Duo and Google Photos. APIs are non-graphical user interface (GUI) services which run in background, they function as messengers that allow software to talk to software inside the system and on outside, they function as building blocks that allow number of systems, data locations and digital devices to communicate with one another in the digital network. Some of the Google APIs (such as Google Maps APIs, Play Games API, Location APIs, Cloud drive APIs, etc.) and other APIs which are exclusively available through Google Play Services are part of GMS.
The GMS is proprietary of Google. Unlike Android they are not licensed via open source and released into public domain. GMS is a non-free suite. The source code is the base of a program and the central point of control. Only the owner of proprietary software has the right to access the source code of the program. It cannot be used by other parties without negotiations with Google. Android operating system which is a licensable smart mobile operating system. Open-source software is free to use, develop, modify and redistribute.
For OEMs to get a GMS licence from Google in order to install them in Android products such as smartphones they are required by Google to pre-load all the Google apps and services contained in the bundle as pre-installed software. Google does not allow OEMs to pick and choose from the applications and services contained in the bundle. While signing a MADA was optional, original equipment manufacturers are stipulated to pre-install all Google's Android applications and services in order to obtain any part of GMS. It was argued that this hinders the development of rival mobile applications and services in the market.
Before signing a MADA, OEMs had to enter into an anti-fragmentation agreement (AFA) with Google, which prevented them from developing and marketing an Android Fork on other devices. This restricted access to potentially superior versions of the Android operating system.
The MADAs and AFA agreements made it possible for Google to promote and monetize YouTube as an online video platform. This makes Google AdSense the winner takes all in the play by leveraging YouTube's dominance in the advertising market. The unavailability of YouTube Premium ad-free services in the Indian market has a direct impact on Google's AdSense revenue. YouTube's content is distributed on more than 300 million Android smartphones in India, and 85 percent is consumed by Android smartphones having MADAs and AFA agreements.
Google's counterarguments
It was argued that the alleged restrictions and conditions in this case did not cause foreclosure in the India markets and do not fall in the anti-competitive agreements of The Competition Act, 2002, hence are not anti-competitive practices. Some of the arguments are as follows: