The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has accepted a settlement proposal from Google to resolve allegations of anti-competitive practices concerning its Android TV licensing agreements. .The decision, passed by majority coram of the CCI led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, includes a ₹20.24 crore settlement amount and requires Google to implement structural changes in its dealings with smart TV manufacturers.However, CCI Member Anil Agrawal issued a strong dissent, calling for outright rejection of the settlement..The case originated from complaints filed by lawyers Kshitiz Arya and Purushottam Anand in 2020, alleging that Google abused its dominant position in the markets for licensable smart TV operating systems and app stores. The CCI directed the Director General to commence an investigation in this regard. The investigation by the DG determined that Google held dominant positions in both - the market for licensable smart TV operating systems and the market for app stores for Android smart TV OS in India. The investigation found Google had abused this dominance through several practices:Mandating pre-installation of its entire Google TV Services package.Requiring manufacturers to sign Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) preventing them from developing devices with competing forked Android versions.Tying the YouTube app to the Play Store, leveraging its app store dominance to protect its position in the online video hosting platform market..In May 2024, Google filed an application for settlement under the CCI (Settlement) Regulations, 2024. Under its settlement proposal, Google agreed to:Offer a standalone “New India Agreement” allowing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to license the Google Play Store without bundling other Google apps.Waive the Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) requirement for devices sold in India without Google apps.Remind OEMs of their right to use open-source Android or competing OSs like Tizen and WebOS.Google also committed to maintaining these changes for five years and to submit annual compliance reports..The CCI determined the settlement amount after considering Google’s relevant turnover linked to Android TV operations in India, rejecting Google’s argument to exclude revenues from YouTube and the Play Store. A 15% settlement discount was applied in line with the CCI’s Settlement Regulations.Google accepted the amount and deposited the sum on April 8, 2025."Google will adhere to all three settlement proposals for a period of 5 years. Google is also prepared to submit regular compliance reports to the Commission confirming that it is honouring its obligations under these settlement proposals," the CCI order said..In his dissent, CCI Member Anil Agrawal issued a strong opinion against the Commission’s majority decision to accept Google’s settlement proposal in the Android TV antitrust case.Agrawal stated that Google's proposal "does not prima facie address all the competition concerns identified by the DG" and called for its "unequivocal rejection.".A key concern raised was Google’s decision to continue offering the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA) alongside the newly proposed "New India Agreement." While the New India Agreement allows OEMs to license the Play Store without other Google apps for a fee, TADA remains a free option but retains restrictive conditions. Agrawal observed,"This dual structure places OEMs in a position where opting for the New India Agreement incurs additional costs, while the bundled applications under TADA remain free but come with restrictive conditions. This arrangement is not likely to correct existing market arrangements which are based on TADA."He emphasised that TADA had been prima facie found to contravene the Competition Act, and continuing it without modification would sustain anti-competitive practices."The Settlement Proposal does not eliminate existing arrangements under TADA which have been prima facie found to be contravening the provisions of the Act.".Further, Agrawal highlighted Google's failure to address the DG's findings on the tying of YouTube with the Play Store under TADA. He also pointed out that Google’s proposal was silent on the requirement imposed on OEMs to place Google’s designated button on physical and mobile remote controls. Concluding his dissent, Agrawal asserted,"I am of the view that there must be only one agreement, with or without fee, for the licensing of Google Applications... As the Settlement Proposal does not address these issues, it fails to inspire confidence and merits unequivocal rejection.".[Read Judgment]
