CCI: Closes WinZO Google Antitrust Case Due to Gaming Ban

• The Competition Commission of India has closed its antitrust probe against Google regarding real-money gaming apps.
• The closure was prompted by a statutory ban on online money games in India.
• The probe originated from a complaint by WinZO Games, alleging Google abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
• WinZO's complaint focused on Google's 2022 policy favoring Daily Fantasy Sports and Rummy apps on the Play Store and in advertising.
• Crucially, the CCI clarified that the closure does not represent a finding on the merits of Google's alleged anti-competitive conduct.

The CCI's explicit statement that the closure does not constitute a finding on the merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct carries significant weight.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has formally concluded its antitrust investigation into Google concerning its policies for real-money gaming applications. This decision to close the probe was primarily driven by the subsequent statutory ban imposed on online money games in India. The regulatory body had previously initiated a detailed inquiry into allegations that Google engaged in discriminatory practices affecting various categories of real-money gaming apps available on its Play Store and through Google Ads. This specific CCI closes WinZO Google antitrust case, however, does not include any determination on the underlying merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct, a crucial clarification from the regulator.

The antitrust proceedings originated from a complaint lodged by WinZO Games Private Limited against Google LLC, its parent company Alphabet Inc, and Google's Indian subsidiaries. WinZO specifically accused Google of abusing its dominant market position, a violation outlined under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. At the heart of WinZO's grievance was Google's 2022 pilot program, which controversially permitted only Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy real-money gaming apps to be listed on the Google Play Store, while excluding other types of real-money gaming applications. Furthermore, WinZO Games Google Play Store antitrust complaint extended to Google's advertising policies, which also favored DFS and Rummy apps, and the display of warnings when users attempted certain payments via Google Pay.

Prior to closing the case, the Competition Commission of India Google had, in November 2024, made significant preliminary findings regarding Google's market power. The CCI determined that Google held a dominant position across several key markets in India, including licensable mobile operating systems, Android app stores, and online search advertising services. The regulator had also expressed concerns that Google's selective admission of DFS and Rummy apps could potentially foster a "two-tier market," thereby disadvantaging competing real-money gaming developers. Despite these initial observations and the detailed investigation directed, the closure of the case due to the online gaming ban India CCI does not imply any judgment on whether Google's actions constituted anti-competitive behavior.

The CCI's explicit statement that the closure does not constitute a finding on the merits of the alleged anti-competitive conduct carries significant weight. This indicates that while the immediate WinZO Games Google Play Store antitrust matter is resolved due to external regulatory changes, the fundamental concerns about Google's market dominance and its real-money gaming apps Google policy remain unaddressed by the competition watchdog. The allegations, rooted in Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, highlight broader questions about fair competition in the digital app ecosystem. Should the statutory ban on online money games ever be lifted, or if similar issues arise in other app categories, the Competition Commission of India could potentially revisit these unresolved questions regarding Google's conduct.

While this specific antitrust case against Google is closed due to the online gaming ban, lawyers should note that the CCI did not rule on the merits of Google's alleged anti-competitive conduct. This implies that the underlying concerns about Google's Play Store policies and its dominant position in India could still be subject to future antitrust scrutiny, especially if the ban is lifted or for other app categories.

Source: Original reporting via regulatory updates