Google's policies in Google Ads have withstood the objections raised by ADIF, as documented by the rejection of their complaint by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed the Alliance of Digital India Foundation's (ADIF) complaint against Google, alleging abuse of dominance through its Google Ads policies.
In its decision, the CCI invoked Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, 2002, which allows the Commission to decline an inquiry into allegations if substantially the same facts and issues have already been decided in previous orders. The CCI found that the issues raised by ADIF had already been adjudicated and did not warrant re-investigation.
ADIF's complaint alleged that Google abused its dominant position in the online search advertising market by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions. These included banning third-party technical support ads, restricting 'Call Ads' to mobile devices only, and operating a non-transparent ad ranking system.
However, the CCI concluded that these issues had been examined thoroughly in earlier cases and no material change or new evidence was presented. Re-investigating would result in wastage of public resources and serve no purpose.
While the CCI closed the case regarding Google Ads policies, it has ordered a separate ongoing investigation into Google’s AdTech stack related to online display advertising. This investigation includes allegations by ADIF and other digital news publishers, indicating that regulatory scrutiny continues in other aspects of Google’s advertising business in India.
Res judicata, or the doctrine of issue preclusion, was a cornerstone of the CCI's decision. This doctrine promotes fairness, consistency, and efficiency by preventing the re-litigation of already decided issues.
Google argued that no dominant position could be claimed solely on the basis of its general search dominance, as ad placement was determined by multiple auction factors including quality score and bid value. The company also defended its ad policies as pro-user and pro-competition, but acknowledged changes had been made over time.
ADIF, on the other hand, argued that these practices were unfair, discriminatory, and not backed by reasonable justifications, thereby violating sections of the Competition Act. The keyword bidding policy, as per the CCI's past decisions, enhances user choice and cannot be treated as anti-competitive.
The matter was closed under Section 26(2A), with directions issued to notify both parties. The CCI relied on past findings in the Matrimony.com and Vishal Gupta cases, stating that Google's ad policies are based on defined criteria to ensure consumer safety.
The role of the competition regulator includes evaluating unfair conditions imposed by dominant players, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in DRS Logistics v. Google. The CCI held that the underlying issues were either the same or "substantially the same" and thus barred from fresh inquiry.
Google introduced the restriction on third-party tech support ads globally in 2018 after repeated consumer harm and scams. The company asserted that Call Ads and Call Assets are structured to ensure click tracking and fraud prevention. Advertisers are provided with sufficient data to assess ad performance, according to the CCI's past rulings.
The CCI's decision underscores its commitment to upholding fair competition practices in the digital advertising market. The ongoing investigation into Google’s AdTech stack indicates that this scrutiny will continue in the future.
The CCI's decision to close the investigation on Google's Google Ads policies follows the resolution of similar issues in past orders, demonstrating the commission's adherence to the Res Judicata doctrine, a principle of fairness, consistency, and efficiency. Consequently, the commission has directed its attention towards an ongoing investigation into Google’s AdTech stack, focusing on allegations from ADIF and other digital news publishers in the banking-and-insurance, finance, and industry sectors, emphasizing the continued regulatory scrutiny of Google’s advertising practices within these domains.
.){kind=link}