2024 (11) TMI 932 - CCI - Law of Competition

Seeking interim relief in terms of the provisions contained in Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 - contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act - HELD THAT - One of the fundamental principles for granting interim relief is the requirement for a clear nexus between the relief sought and the issues under investigation or in dispute. The Commission in the instant matter has directed investigation on select issues as against varied allegations made by the three Informants. Therefore, the relief sought must correspond to the issues outlined for the investigation. A plain reading of the interim relief prayers when juxtaposed with the issues on which investigation has been directed, reveals that there are various interim relief prayers in respect of which there is no corresponding direction for investigation viz. interim relief prayer relating to collection of data, UI/UX interface, etc. Therefore, no relief can be granted in respect of the same. While it is essential to ensure a level playing field and protect competition within the app store market, any measures taken should be proportionate and carefully crafted to minimize unintended consequences and preserve the overall integrity and functionality of the platform ecosystem. Based on the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the Informants have not been able to demonstrate a case in their favour for grant of interim relief for complete restraint on Google from collection of its fee. The Commission is further of the view that the Informants have also failed to meet the necessary criteria for grant of interim relief as propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Informants have not been able to project any higher level of prima facie case warranting a positive direction as sought for by the Informants at the interim stage. The Informant has also not been able to demonstrate as to how the impugned conduct would result in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through monetary compensation. The Commission is also not persuaded that balance of convenience lies in favour of the Informants. The Commission is of the considered opinion that no case whatsoever has been made out by the Informants which warrants grant of interim relief. Resultantly, the applications stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interim relief prayers under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Google.
2. Nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation.
3. Criteria for granting interim relief as per legal principles.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to interim relief prayers filed against Google under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Commission of India had earlier found a prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act against Google and ordered an investigation. The Informants, including People Interactive India Private Limited (PIIPL) and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), sought various interim reliefs related to Google's payment policies and app store guidelines. The Commission considered the relief prayers in light of the statutory scheme and legal principles governing the grant of interim relief.

The Supreme Court's guidance in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. emphasized that interim relief should be granted sparingly and under compelling circumstances, with a high degree of satisfaction that contravention of the Act has occurred or is about to occur. The Commission noted the need for a clear nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation. It found that some relief prayers did not align with the specific issues outlined for investigation, and therefore, could not be granted.

Regarding the relief sought to restrain Google from collecting fees for transactions, the Commission acknowledged concerns about Google's fee structure but also recognized the costs associated with maintaining app stores. It highlighted that requiring Google to offer its platform for free could have unintended consequences and impact the platform's functionality. The Commission concluded that the Informants had not demonstrated a strong case for complete restraint on Google from fee collection.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the Informants failed to meet the criteria for granting interim relief as per legal principles. They did not establish a higher level of prima facie case or show irreparable harm that could not be remedied through compensation. The balance of convenience was also not in favor of the Informants. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the applications for interim relief, emphasizing that the order did not express a final opinion on the case's merits, and the investigation by the Director General would proceed impartially.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interim relief prayers, emphasizing the need for a strong nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation, adherence to legal principles for granting interim relief, and consideration of the broader implications of relief measures on the market dynamics.