In a significant regulatory development, Google has agreed to pay Rs 20.24 crore to settle an antitrust investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concerning alleged anti-competitive practices in the Android TV ecosystem. This marks the first-ever case resolved under the amended Competition Act of 2023, which introduced settlement and commitment mechanisms. The resolution includes substantial structural changes to Google’s licensing agreements in India, granting original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) greater freedom in deploying Android-based smart TVs without mandatorily bundling Google apps or services. The outcome is a milestone for both India's evolving competition framework and digital consumer rights.
Google's Android TV Practices Under Scrutiny
The antitrust concerns date back to 2021, when the CCI launched an investigation into allegations that Google was unfairly leveraging its dominance in the Android TV operating system market. Central to the case were accusations that the tech giant imposed restrictive clauses on smart TV manufacturers, limiting their ability to use alternate versions of Android or pre-install competing applications.
Such restrictions, according to the complaint, stifled competition and limited innovation by compelling manufacturers to adhere strictly to Google’s terms, including mandatory bundling of its proprietary services like the Play Store and Play Services.
Settlement Terms and Regulatory Innovation
The resolution of this case reflects a pivotal shift in India's regulatory environment. With the introduction of settlement and commitment provisions in the revised Competition Act of 2023, the CCI now allows companies to resolve investigations through negotiated settlements, potentially avoiding protracted litigation while still enforcing compliance and accountability.
Google’s settlement offer—accepted by the CCI—includes a commitment to decouple its services for Android smart TVs. Under the newly introduced “New India Agreement,” manufacturers will now be able to license Google’s Play Store and Play Services independently, eliminating the requirement to bundle them with other apps or impose default placements.
This move signals a major transformation in licensing flexibility, empowering OEMs to customize software offerings more freely and foster a competitive marketplace.
OEMs Gain Freedom to Innovate
Perhaps the most significant implication of the settlement lies in how it redefines the operational autonomy of original equipment manufacturers. As per the agreement, OEMs will no longer be required to comply with Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) for devices that do not incorporate Google apps. This change allows manufacturers to develop and sell modified or "incompatible" Android TV devices without risking contractual breaches.
In effect, the Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA) provisions that once restricted innovation by enforcing compliance with Google's ecosystem have now been softened—offering a more open and flexible development environment for device makers operating in India.
Broader Market and Legal Impact
Google's decision to settle—and the CCI’s acceptance of the proposal—sets a precedent in the Indian regulatory landscape. It showcases the effectiveness of the 2023 amendments to the Competition Act in delivering faster, pragmatic outcomes without compromising legal rigor or consumer welfare.
The case also adds to Google’s growing list of antitrust entanglements in India, following previous regulatory actions involving its mobile operating system, digital payments infrastructure, and app marketplace practices. However, the company’s proactive settlement approach here may serve to de-escalate regulatory tensions and pave the way for more constructive engagement with Indian authorities going forward.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Innovation and Oversight
This settlement not only underlines India’s assertiveness in ensuring competitive fairness in the digital economy but also reflects a broader global trend where technology giants are being held increasingly accountable for monopolistic behavior. By resolving the case and agreeing to structural changes, Google avoids further penalties and reputational damage while aligning itself with India’s vision for a more open, competitive digital ecosystem.
As India continues to be a critical growth market for global tech companies, this case sets a high bar for compliance, signaling that innovation must go hand-in-hand with fair market conduct and consumer choice.
Comments