The Competition Commission of India closed its inquiry into Google's alleged abuse of dominance through a selective Real Money Gaming Pilot Program on the Play Store, after the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 imposed a blanket prohibition on all online money games. The Commission recalled its prima facie direction for investigation under Section 26(1), holding that no lawful remedy could survive a supervening statute that eliminated the very market under scrutiny.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Winzo Games Private Limited, a digital gaming platform offering over 100 games in 12 regional languages, filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Google India Private Limited, and Google India Digital Services Private Limited (collectively, Google). The Informant alleged that Google's Play Store Pilot Program, launched on 28.09.2022 for a one-year period, arbitrarily restricted onboarding to only Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy applications, excluding all other Real Money Games (RMGs). This selective access, the Informant contended, constituted discriminatory and abusive conduct under Section 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act.
Key Facts
- Google operates the Google Play Store, the primary app distribution platform for Android OS in India
- On 07.09.2022, Google updated its policies to commence a Pilot Program allowing only DFS and Rummy RMGs on Play Store from 28.09.2022 to 28.09.2023
- From 21.11.2022, Google Ads policy was modified to permit advertisements only for DFS and Rummy apps
- The Informant alleged that Google Pay displayed arbitrary payment warnings for non-DFS/Rummy RMG transactions
- The Informant sought interim relief under Section 33 and a direction for investigation
- The Commission sought inputs from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), which replied on 23.04.2024
Procedural History
- 24.07.2024: Commission meeting to examine the information
- 11.09.2024: Preliminary conference with parties
- 28.11.2024: Prima Facie Order under Section 26(1) - Commission identified relevant markets as (a) market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India; (b) market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India; (c) market for online search advertising services in India. Google found prima facie dominant in all three. Direction issued to Director General (DG) for investigation
- 11.02.2025: Google filed Commitment Application under Section 48B read with Commitment Regulations 2024
- 18.02.2025: Defects in application communicated
- 25.02.2025: Google removed defects
- 05.03.2025: Commission meeting - prima facie not satisfied with commitments; directed revised application within 15 days
- 04.04.2025: First Revised Commitment Application dated
- 07.04.2025: First Revised Commitment Application filed
- 30.04.2025: Commission meeting - found First Revised incomplete (no Ads commitment, no payment warnings commitment); extended last opportunity to file complete revised application within 4 weeks
- 23.06.2025: Second Revised Commitment Application filed
- 23.07.2025: Commission meeting - directed market testing under Regulation 5 of Commitment Regulations 2024; inquiry kept in abeyance under Regulation 4(3)
- 30.07.2025: Non-confidential summary published for public comments (deadline 20.08.2025)
- 20.08.2025: Timeline extended to 01.09.2025
- 21.08.2025: Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament
- 22.08.2025: President's assent - Online Gaming Act, 2025 became law
- 01.05.2026: Online Gaming Act and Rules came into force
- 18.09.2025: Google filed IA No. 392 of 2025 seeking closure or permission to file revised commitment to close Pilot Program
- 19.11.2025: Commission meeting - directed oral hearing for Google
- 11.12.2025: Oral hearing for Google; statutory period for commitment proceedings extended
- 19.12.2025: Google filed post-hearing submissions and IA No. 529 of 2025 committing to close Pilot Program and stop RMG ads
- 15.01.2026: Google filed IA No. 24 of 2026 with update on steps taken
- 29.01.2026: Commission meeting - submissions taken on record
- 06.02.2026: Google filed IA No. 42 of 2026 - Pilot Program closed, Ads policy changes in effect from January 2026
- 05.08.2026: Commission meeting - coram changed; directed fresh oral hearings
- 19.08.2026: Oral hearing for Google
- 25.08.2026: Oral hearing for Informant - Informant voluntarily sought withdrawal of Information
- 27.08.2026: Google filed post-hearing submission
- 08.09.2026: Final order passed
Relief Sought
The Informant originally sought initiation of inquiry against Google for abuse of dominant position under Section 4, interim relief under Section 33 to restrain the selective Pilot Program, and directions to allow all permissible RMGs on Play Store and Google Ads without discrimination.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Competition Commission should continue an inquiry under Section 26 when a supervening statute - the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 - has prohibited the entire economic activity (real money gaming) that formed the subject matter of the alleged abuse; (2) Whether commitment proceedings under Section 48B can be concluded when the commitment offer has become legally impossible to implement; (3) Whether the Commission's inherent powers under Section 36(1) permit recall of a prima facie direction under Section 26(1) in such exceptional circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Informant (Winzo Games)
The Informant initially argued that Google's selective Pilot Program distorted competition by granting preferential access to DFS and Rummy apps while excluding other skill-based RMGs, leveraging Google's dominance in the Android app store and digital advertising markets. The Informant contended that the modified Google Ads policy and Google Pay warnings compounded the exclusionary effect. During the final hearing on 25.08.2026, the Informant voluntarily sought withdrawal of the Information, acknowledging that the enactment of the Online Gaming Act had rendered the matter infructuous.
For the Commitment Applicant (Google)
Google submitted that the Online Gaming Act, 2025 effected a fundamental change in the legal landscape. Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Act impose a complete, game-neutral prohibition on offering, advertising, and facilitating payments for online money games, eliminating any lawful RMG market. Google argued that:
- The Second Revised Commitment Application (proposing a self-declaration and third-party certification model for skill-based RMGs) had become legally impermissible to implement
- Continuing the inquiry would serve no remedial purpose as no forward-looking remedy could restore market access or correct distortion in a market that no longer exists
- The Prima Facie Order under Section 26(1) is merely administrative and recallable, as held in Google Inc. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (2015 SCC OnLine Del 8992)
- The Commission's inherent powers under Section 36(1) read with Regulation 3 of the General Regulations 2024 authorize closure in exceptional circumstances
- Precedents including Kedar Nath Agrawal v. Dhanraji Devi (2004) 8 SCC 76, N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana (2003) 1 SCC 453, and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1969 support closure when subsequent events render proceedings infructuous
- The Pilot Program and RMG advertisements had already been discontinued from January 2026, before the Act came into force
The Court's Analysis
The Commission examined the interplay between the Competition Act's corrective framework and the supervening legislative prohibition. It noted that the Preamble and Section 18 of the Competition Act mandate preservation of competitive markets, consumer protection, and freedom of trade - objectives that cannot be served when the market itself has been abolished by Parliament.
"The Online Gaming Act stipulates a complete and game-neutral prohibition, thus there is no room for indulging in discretionary selection of one category of real money games to the exclusion of others. In other words, there is no longer a lawful RMG market on Play Store or Google Ads which can be opened to one category of game developers while being denied to another."
The Commission found that the reliefs originally sought - requiring Google to admit all RMGs to Play Store or permit their advertisements - would now contravene Sections 5 and 6 of the Online Gaming Act. The payment warnings issue similarly lost its foundation, as Section 7 prohibits payment facilitation for all online money games across categories.
On the commitment proceedings, the Commission held that Regulation 7 of the Commitment Regulations 2024 requires proposed commitments to be capable of implementation. The Second Revised Commitment Application, premised on the lawfulness of skill-based RMGs, could no longer be executed. Google's request to file a further revised commitment proposing closure of the Pilot Program and prohibition of RMG ads was declined, as these are mandatory statutory compliances, not negotiable competition remedies.
The Commission emphasized the inquisitorial and in rem nature of Competition Act proceedings: the Informant is not the dominus litis, and withdrawal does not bind the Commission. However, the Informant's withdrawal reinforced the conclusion that no individual or market-wide relief survives.
Relying on Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744, the Commission confirmed that a Section 26(1) direction is merely administrative and recallable where, without factual controversy, the information no longer warrants investigation. The cumulative impact of the supervening legislation, absence of lawful remedy, advanced but unimplementable commitment proceedings, discontinuance of the impugned conduct, and Informant's withdrawal made continuation unnecessary.
The Verdict
The Commission recalled its direction dated 28.11.2024 issued under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 and directed that the present inquiry be closed. The closure is based on the facts and legal position prevailing on the date of the order (08.09.2026). The Commission made no finding on the merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct. It reserved the right to take cognizance of any future alleged anti-competitive conduct if the relevant provisions of the Online Gaming Act are stayed, struck down, repealed, or otherwise cease to operate. All pending interlocutory applications were deemed disposed of. Confidentiality was granted to specified documents for three years under Regulation 36 of the General Regulations 2024 subject to Section 57 of the Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Supervening Legislation Can Extinguish Competition Inquiries
When Parliament enacts a statute that prohibits the very market under investigation, the Competition Commission may close the inquiry even at an advanced stage. The corrective purpose of the Competition Act cannot be served where no market exists to correct. Practitioners should monitor legislative developments that may render their client's complaint or defence moot.
Commitment Offers Must Remain Legally Implementable
A commitment under Section 48B must be capable of implementation at the time of acceptance. If a supervening law makes the commitment unlawful, the Commission cannot accept it - and cannot treat mandatory statutory compliance as a negotiated remedy. Parties drafting commitments should build in regulatory change contingencies or withdrawal clauses.
Prima Facie Orders Are Recallable Without Merits Determination
The Commission's power to recall a Section 26(1) direction is well-established but must be exercised sparingly. It is available where the Commission can conclude, without entering factual controversy, that the information no longer warrants investigation. This case illustrates that a supervening legislative ban on the relevant market qualifies as such a circumstance.
Inquisitorial Nature Limits Informant's Control
An Informant's withdrawal request does not compel closure. The Commission independently assesses whether the public interest in continuing the inquiry survives. However, withdrawal combined with a market-wide legislative change strengthens the case for closure.
