Competition Commission of India fines Google

The order was passed on March 27, 2014 DG submitted its report. CCI alleged inter alia non-cooperation by Google in the pending investigations.

In June 2012, CUTS filed a formal complaint against Google’s unethical and anti-competitive business practices with the CCI on June 6, 2012. This was the second formal complaint against Google.

Other cases against Google

  • In February 2012, CCI directed to formally probe against Google in India for its Adwords service when Chennai based Consim Info, that runs com formally filed a complaint against Google, citing discriminatory trade practices. At that time, CUTS told MediaNama that the information filed by CUTS against Google is for violations of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 that covers acts on Anti-competitive agreements and Abuse of dominant position.
  • Bharatmatrimony in 2009, filed a complaint against Google at the Madras high court for displaying their competitors ads on Google
  • In February 2012, Bharatmatrimony again filed a complaint against Google, citing discriminatory trade practices related to its AdWords program Damages Claimed- Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York[1]
  • In February 2011, CCI reviewed a complaint filed by Eximorp India Pvt Ltd against Google India Pvt Ltd for alleging abuse of the dominant position by Google for its Adwords services.

Eximorp filed complaint against Google

Google’s Business practices are inappropriate and discriminatory in nature. Bidding process introduced by Google to place advertisements on Adwords is non-transparent. Google refused to accept payment via credit card, a discriminatory practice on Geographical location.

On April 25, 2014, a U.S. appeals court will consider Apple Inc’s request to put off a July trial to determine how much the iPad maker must pay in damages to customers in more than two dozen states over e-book price fixing.

Antitrust Settlements with eBay Announced By U.S., State Justice Department [2]

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) filed suit against eBay, alleging the company entered a per se illegal agreement not to solicit employees of Intuit.

The U.S. and California justice departments on May 01, 2014 announced proposed settlements of a pair of antitrust lawsuits that accused eBay Inc. of entering into an illegal “no poaching” agreement with Intuit Inc.

It was alleged that eBay violated federal and state antitrust laws by agreeing with Intuit between 2006 and 2009 that the two firms would not recruit employees from one another and that eBay would not hire Intuit workers who approached it.

The DOJ brought suit against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar in 2010, alleging that agreements among the various companies regarding non-solicitation employment practices were per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. The same investigation led to suits against Lucasfilm [3] and then eBay. [4]

A series of bi-lateral agreements were alleged as follows:

Apple – Adobe Google – Intel

Apple – Google Google – Intuit

Apple – Pixar Lucasfilm – Pixar

eBay – Intuit

The DOJ alleged the core of each agreement was that the companies would not cold call or recruit each other’s employees. The Lucasfilm – Pixar agreement was alleged to go further, providing that one company would notify the other if making an offer to an employee and that the firm making the offer would not counter above its initial offer. The agreements were not all in writing and included “handshake” agreements between executives. The agreements were enforced though oral instructions to recruiters, written policies in hiring manuals, “do not call” lists, and direct communications between executives.

Apple, Google & others settle in anti-trust suit over no-poaching agreements for $324M.

Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel have settled in the long running antitrust lawsuit filed by employees alleging the companies entered into agreements “to not hire employees” from one another , but the class-action suit from employees was settled on April 24, 2014. [5]

Google accused of illegally monopolising search, artificially hiking Android phone prices in lawsuit

Consumer rights law firm Hagens Berman filed the lawsuit on May 01, 2014 on behalf of two Android smartphone users who alleged that Google “illegally monopolised” the internet and mobile search market in the US. The complaint argued that Google harms the state of search by forcing smartphone manufacturers using Google’s Android operating system to preload Google’s suite of applications, including Google Search, by way of secret Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA).

As per the MADAs, makers of Android smartphones are forced to include Google’s applications, including: Search, Gmail, Calendar, You Tube, Google Talk, Google Maps, Google Street View, Google Voice Search, Android Market Client, Contact Sync and Set-up Wizard.

The arrangement between Google and smartphone makers such as Samsung and HTC, says Berman, is tantamount to violating the Sherman Act and a slew of other antitrust laws.

The lawsuit also alleges that, without the MADAs, smartphone makers can subsidize the price of their handsets and drive down costs for consumers.

It also accuses Google of paying Apple “hundreds of millions, if not billions” of dollars to keep Google Search the default search app in Apple devices.

This isn’t the first time Google has been accused of such practices, with Fairshare Europe – a group whose members include Microsoft and Nokia – having attacked Google last year for the same thing.




[3] United States v. Lucasfilm Ltd., Case No. 1:10-cv-02220 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2010).

[4] United States v. eBay, Case No. 12-5869 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012)