Abstract
The case of Umar Javid, Sukarma Thapar, and Aaqib Javid v. Google LLC and Ors. before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is a landmark case in India’s competition jurisprudence. The petition, Umar Javid, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javid v. Google LLC and Ors., is considered a significant consumer-driven attack on Google’s established dominance in India’s mobile operating system market.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) held that Google’s practices, including the mandatory bundling of its suite of apps and anti-disruption agreements, unfairly restricted competition in several ways. It denied market access to rival entities and leveraged its dominance in several markets.
This article provides a thorough, critical analysis of the theoretical underpinnings, relevant literature, and broader implications for startups, digital competition, and monopoly regulation in India.
Introduction
The Android operating system dominates the Indian smartphone ecosystem, powering over 95% of devices across India. Android is considered open-source globally, and for these reasons, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) rely entirely on Google’s proprietary GMS (including the Google Play Store, Search, Chrome, and YouTube) for full functionality.
The writ petition of Umar Javid vs. Google LLC & Others, Delhi High Court, 2023, was based on the conflict in which the petitioners—Umar Javid, Sukarma Thapar, and Aaqib Javid—have emerged as the protagonists of an ongoing collective protest challenging the mandatory integration of the Android operating system with Google Mobile Services (GMS).
The petitioners, representing the interests of consumers, argued that Google’s business model for Android, the dominant global mobile operating system with over 95% market share in India, stifles competition and innovation.
The suit was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and alleges that Google’s integration was enforced through the Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD) and the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA). This mandatory integration constitutes a gross abuse of a dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, and also creates vertical restrictions prohibited by Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, 2002.
All of these agreements, including MADA and the Anti-Fragmentation Agreement (AFA), were seriously accused of imposing unfair terms and obligations.
The Delhi High Court is deliberating on this agreement. The complaint outlined four relevant markets, including Licensable Smart Mobile OS, App Stores for Android Mobile OS, Online Video Hosting Platform (OVHP), and Online General Web Search Service, with India as the relevant geographical market.
This could result in momentum for enforcement under the nascent Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the proposed anticipatory regime, further strengthening India’s position in global digital governance.
Literature Review
Jurisprudence regarding abuses of dominant position in digital markets is still evolving globally. Numerous scholarly writings and judicial precedents from the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) provided an important background for the CCI’s investigation.
Bhattacharya’s Competition Policy in India (2008) was seminal literature criticizing the Act’s nascent framework for dealing with digital monopolies. It highlighted shortcomings in extraterritorial application against foreign entities like Google. Liberalization provisions and subsequent amendments in 2012 expanded Section 4 to include “denial of market access.”
This echoes EU examples in works such as Singh’s Indian Competition Law and Practice (2019) and underlines the shift toward effects-based analysis.
1. Academic Discourse on Abuse of Dominance
Indian competition law scholars argue that dominance itself is not illegal. Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 provides that only its abuse is punishable. Dominance in digital markets is often established through data-driven network effects, default positioning, and lock-in effects.
2. Comparative Jurisprudence
Google was also fined €4.34 billion in the Google Android case (2018) by the European Commission for similar tying practices. The literature shows agreement between EU and Indian authorities on how pre-installation agreements distort competition.
Previous cases under the Competition Act, 2002, dealing with abuse of dominance in India, did not comprehensively address the nuances of digital markets. DLF vs. Competition Commission of India focused on real estate, while Shamsher Kataria vs. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd involved the automobile sector.
The Proof: Data, Arguments, Authority
Proof and Data
The petitioners’ arguments are based on three-fold evidence:
- Empirical data demonstrating market distortion
- Theoretical arguments based on statutory authority
- Precedents supporting liability
Android OS penetration in India has reached 97%, according to Statista (2023). Google’s own disclosures indicate 99% of GMS-licensed devices. The petitioners argue that this monopoly stems from the Android CDD requirement that OEMs bundle 11 Google apps (e.g., Chrome, Maps) to access the Play Store, leading to the banning of 80% of non-compliant devices globally.
A CCI investigation (2022) found that bundling increases OEM licensing fees by ₹500–1,000 per device, passed on to consumers, violating the prohibition of “unfair pricing” under Section 4(2)(a)(ii). Nielsen’s Consumer Survey (2021) reveals that 65% of Indian users are unaware of alternatives, highlighting information asymmetry and lock-in dependency.
Authority and CCI’s Findings
- Google imposed unfair conditions on OEMs under Section 4(2)(a)(i).
- Restricts technological development of competing OS forks under Section 4(2)(b)(ii).
- Deprives rival app developers of market access under Section 4(2)(c).
- Leverages dominance in OS to protect Google’s position in search and app distribution under Section 4(2)(e).
Arguments
The lawsuit cites Section 3(4)(e) of the Competition Act, classifying GMS bundling as a vertical tie-in agreement with the AAEC. Competitors like the Amazon Appstore or Indian apps (e.g., Bharat Browser) are suppressed.
CCI’s 2022 determination: Google holds a dominant position in “general mobile search services” (95%) and “app stores” (90%) under Section 4. Abuse manifests as “imposing unfair conditions” [Section 4(2)(c)].
Google uses the free Android OS to extract rent from tied GMS, amounting to “predatory tying.” The Authority draws from the Preamble of the Act, prioritizing “preservation of competition” and consumer welfare, with equitable resource distribution mandated by Article 39(c) of the Constitution.
Remedies Imposed by CCI (2022 Order)
- Google cannot force OEMs to pre-install all its apps.
- Users must choose a default search engine.
- Google cannot restrict uninstallation of pre-installed apps.
- Fine of ₹1,337.76 crore imposed.
Case Laws
- Competition Commission of India v. Google LLC (Google Pay case) – CCI found Play Store billing policies anti-competitive; NCLAT upheld key findings but reduced penalty.
- Competition Commission of India v. M/s DLF Limited – Established CCI jurisdiction in abuse of dominance cases in emerging markets; relevant market can be narrowly defined.
- Intel Corporation v. European Commission – Intel fined for conditional discounts to computer manufacturers, excluding rivals, setting a precedent for Google’s bundling practices.
Conclusion
The “Umar Javed” case demonstrates increasing regulatory scrutiny on Big Tech. It sets strong precedent under Competition Act, 2002, confirming that even “free” products cannot exploit dominance to stifle competition.
Consumer choice cannot be undermined. By establishing GMS bundling as a serious abuse under Sections 3 and 4, the case signals a paradigm shift toward consumer-empowered enforcement, mandating AOSP decoupling and open app sideloading.
FAQs
Q1: What was the main allegation in the Omar Javed case?
Ans: Google abused its dominance and forced competitors to pre-install Google apps through restrictive agreements with OEMs.
Q2: Who are the petitioners and what relief are they seeking?
Ans: Umar Javed, Sukarma Thapar, and Aaqib Javed are Indian consumers who purchased Android devices. They seek GMS de-bundling, refund of increased prices, and CCI investigation into anti-competitive practices.
Q3: How does this case relate to the CCI’s 2022 order against Google?
Ans: Based on CCI’s ₹1,337 crore fine for Android bundling, it provides evidentiary and legal consistency, invoking consumer locus standi, absent in CCI’s suo motu proceedings.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
