18-min, Umar Javeed v. Google LLC

Umar Javeed v. Google LLC

Simple Music Player
Track Name
Track Artist


Mr. Umar Javeed & Others Vs. Google LLC & Other.


  • The informants, Mr. Umar Javeed, Ms. Sukarma Thapar and Mr. Aaqib Javeed filed this information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Google LLC and Google India Private Limited, alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
  • Majority of smart phone and tablet manufacturers in India use Google’s Android Operating System (OS) and many of them use Android in combination with Google Mobile Services (GMS).
  • Manufacturers need to sign certain agreements with Google to use Android with GMS or without GMS, which the informants allege is abuse of its dominant power. The informants have essentially made other allegations elaborating Google’s dominant position in Online General Web Search Services and Online Video Hosting Platform ( Para 9).
  • Manufacturers that wish to preinstall GMS on their devices sign an optional, non-exclusive contract called the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (“MADA”) which requires them to install entire suit of google apps in pre determined positions.


  • Whether there is any dominance of google in relevant markets, resulting in contravention of the Competition Act?

Applicable Laws-

  • Section 4 (2)(a)(i), Section 4(2)(c), Section 4(2)(e)


  • Mandatory pre installation of entire GMS suite under MADA amounts to imposition of unfair condition on the device manufacturers and thereby in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It also uses Google’s dominance in Play Store to protect the relevant markets such as online general search in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. This conduct of Google will help in establishing its dominance in the online search market which can result in denial of market access to other search apps, resulting in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.


  • This is prima facie, a case of Abuse of dominant Position by Google. The Commission directed the Director General (‘DG’) to cause an investigation to be made into the matter under the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *