2024 (11) TMI 937 - CCI - Law of Competition

Contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - delisting of plugins from the plugin s directory maintained by WordPress - abuse of dominant position - HELD THAT - It is noted that the wordpress.org is primarily a CMS services which simplifies website development for non- technical users by providing pre-built templates, plugins, and a user-friendly interface for adding, editing, and organizing content and enables them to manage website content easily by reducing the need for extensive coding. Traditional website design and development agencies, as well as in-house website building and management teams, could also be considered to be competing with CMS providers - first relevant product market in the present case could be market for provision of Content Management Software (CMS). Furthermore, India may be considered as relevant geographic market. Accordingly, the primary relevant market in the present matter is the market for provision of Content Management Software (CMS) in India. In relation to dominance of WordPress within this market, the OP has submitted that WordPress.org is a leading directory for listing WordPress plug-ins, but not the only directory. The Plug-in Directory on WordPress.org is considered as one of the more reliable sources for downloading plug-ins because of the rigorous review each plug- in submitted to the Plug-in Directory has to go through. Further, based on the available information, it is noted that WordPress Plugin Directory hosts around 60000 plugins while other directories have significantly less number of plugins. Therefore, it appears that WordPress is a dominant player in this relevant market. The Commission is of the view that WordPress.org is justified in taking appropriate action against any developer found non-compliant with the prescribed standards and regulations. It is also noted that guidelines have not been applied in a discriminatory manner and around 35 developers including the Informant have been permanently banned from WordPress.org for repeated violation of the Guidelines. Therefore, the conduct of the Opposite Party does not appear to be either unfair or discriminatory. The Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against the Opposite Party in the instant matter. Accordingly, the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is also rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged abuse of dominant position by WordPress in delisting plugins, violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, seeking reinstatement of plugins and compensation by the Informant, examination of relevant markets and dominance by WordPress, analysis of conduct by WordPress regarding delisting plugins, consideration of self-preferencing allegations against Jetpack plugin, decision on contravention of Section 4 of the Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an Information filed by an Informant against Automattic Inc. alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informant, a software developer, claimed that WordPress.org, owned by the Opposite Party, abused its dominant position by delisting the Informant's plugins, leading to loss of revenue. The Informant sought reinstatement of plugins and compensation. The Commission initiated proceedings and sought responses from both parties.

The Commission analyzed the relevant markets, identifying the market for Content Management Software (CMS) and the WordPress-Specific Plugin Directories Market in India. It found that WordPress.org held a dominant position in both markets based on market share. The Commission examined the conduct of WordPress regarding the delisting of plugins and found that the Informant's plugins were banned due to persistent violations of guidelines, not due to unfair practices. Around 35 developers, including the Informant, were permanently banned for guideline violations, indicating non-discriminatory enforcement.

Regarding the Informant's allegation of self-preferencing by promoting its Jetpack plugin over the Informant's plugins, the Commission found no evidence of direct competition between the plugins. The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act by the Opposite Party. Consequently, the Information was ordered to be closed, and the request for relief under Section 33 was rejected.

In the final part of the order, the Commission addressed the confidentiality of certain documents filed by the Opposite Party, granting confidentiality for a specified period. The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to both the Informant and the Opposite Party, concluding the proceedings.