AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present Information has been filed by Preeti Kodwani (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), against Sundar Pichai (‘Opposite Party-1’/ ‘OP-1’), Bhavesh Jeswani (‘Opposite Party-2’/ ‘OP-2’), Samaira Jeswani (‘Opposite Party-3’/ ‘OP-3’), Rushan Hafiz (‘Opposite Party-4’/ ‘OP-4’), EY (Rohit Limaye, Joval Varghese) (‘Opposite Party-5’/ ‘OP-5’), Kuwarjit Singh Duggal (‘Opposite Party-6’/ ‘OP-6’), Alankrita Rana (‘Opposite Party-7’/ ‘OP-7’), Mohit Krishnani (‘Opposite Party-8’/ ‘OP-8’), Tanya Khanchandani (‘Opposite Party-9’/‘OP-9’), Pearl Jain (‘Opposite Party-10’/ ‘OP-10’), Nishant Shedale & Associates (‘Opposite Party-11’/ ‘OP-11’), Apple LLC (‘Opposite Party-12’/ ‘OP-12’), Mohit Rohra (‘Opposite Party-13’/ ‘OP-13’), Hitesh Jeswani (‘Opposite Party-14’/ ‘OP-14’), Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj (‘Opposite Party-15’/ ‘OP-15’), Rasmi Rana (‘Opposite Party-16’/ ‘OP-16’), Meet Merchant (‘Opposite Party-17’/ ‘OP-17’), Anam Hafiz (‘Opposite Party-18’/ ‘OP-18’), Arshaan Hafiz (‘Opposite Party-19’/ ‘OP-19’), Bhairavi (‘Opposite Party-20’/ ‘OP-20’), Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (‘Opposite Party-21’/ ‘OP-21’), Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. (‘Opposite Party-22’/ ‘OP-22’) and Wix.com Ltd. (‘Opposite Party-23’/ ‘OP-23’) inter alia alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
It is stated that the Informant is engaged in legitimate business activities and invests considerable resources in marketing and client acquisition through online platforms such as Google and other digital intermediaries. As per the Information, certain dominant players in the digital ecosystems including major technology companies and their associated Artificial Intelligence or ad serving systems are allegedly engaging in practices that unfairly restrict the Informant's market access and divert its commercial opportunities to competitors.
It is stated that the cumulative and persistent behaviour has already resulted in severe and fundamental commercial distress for the Informant, specifically by undermining professional roles and effectively cutting off access to funding and investment opportunities.
It is alleged that the Informant's digital identifiers (such as email IDs, website accounts, or ad campaign data) are being manipulated or interfered with. Further, leads and customers who search for or interact with the Informant's brand are diverted to competitors, despite paid marketing efforts by the Informant and such diversion constitutes “market allocation" and denial of market access under Section 3(3) and Section 4(2)(c) of the Act, respectively.
It is further alleged that platforms with a dominant position in online advertising and search services are using their control to bias search results and ad placements, intentionally suppressing visibility of the Informant's business which amounts to imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions in the sale of services, in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
As per the Information, there are attempts to influence international customers (including those in the USA) to boycott the Informant's brand. It is stated that if this involves collusion among competitors or coordinated platform behavior, it represents a concerted refusal to deal.
It is stated that the Informant is deprived of access to customers/clients and markets despite legitimate advertising expenditure, compounding the pre-existing harm to its funding and business stability. The Informant further states that competitors gain an unfair advantage through manipulated visibility, therefore harming not only the Informant but also consumer choice and market transparency, leading to appreciable adverse effect on competition (‘AAEC’) in India's digital services market.
The Informant has sought the following interim relief under Section 33 of the Act from the Commission: to restrain ongoing hijacking, diversion of traffic and suppression of listings; order for restoration of fair access to digital marketing and ad-serving systems; and immediate cease-and-desist order (injunction) to stop all acts of defamation and malicious interference with the Informant's client acquisition and business relationships. Further, the Informant has requested the Commission to issue a direction to investigate abuse of dominance and collusive behaviour.
The Commission, in its ordinary meeting held on 10.12.2025, considered the Information and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
The Commission notes that the allegations levelled in the Information are vague, broad, and devoid of the requisite particulars, and the nature of the alleged contraventions have not been clearly articulated. Furthermore, there are 23 OPs arrayed in the present matter; however, the specific role, conduct, and contribution of each OP have not been mentioned in the Information.
The Commission further notes that the evidence furnished in the Information in the form of screenshots is largely illegible and incapable of proper scrutiny. Even otherwise, the Informant fails to specify the manner in which provisions of the Act are allegedly violated. Therefore, in these circumstances, the allegations remain indeterminate and legally unsustainable.
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission is of the view that there is no prima-facie contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter. Therefore, the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is rejected.
The Secretary is directed to communicate the decision of the Commission to the Informant, accordingly.