Antitrust Assessment of Google’s Settlement in the Android TV Case

Introduction

On 21 April 2025, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) announced a significant Regulatory Development regarding the topic of Platform Dominance and Vertical Restraints in relation to the Digital Market place and the Smart TV Ecosystem. It should be noted that Google will now be able to continue to offer Android TV services, having obtained CCI’s approval of its Settlement Proposal under Section 48A (3) of the Competition Act, 2002 and CCI Settlement Regulations, 2024. A careful review of the contents of the CCI press release identifies the Procedural History, Substantive Findings, and Regulatory Implications relating to the Settlement Proposal.

Procedural Background and Genesis of the Case

The proceedings originated from an information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act by two individuals Mr. Kshitiz Arya and Mr. Purushottam Anand against Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited, and TCL India Holding Private Limited. The allegations pertained to Google’s alleged misuse of its dominant position through restrictive contractual practices affecting Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). On receipt of this information, the Commission formed a prima facie view that Google had potentially violated Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act, thereby warranting a Director General (DG) investigation under Section 26(1). This procedural adherence reflects the structured mechanism through which the CCI evaluates competition concerns.¹

Substantive Allegations Against Google

The core allegations concerned Google’s conduct in the market for Android Smart TV operating systems, specifically that it compelled OEMs to enter agreements that bundled the Google Play Store with the Android TV operating system (Android TV OS), and restricted OEMs from developing or adopting competing Android forks through the Anti-Fragmentation Agreements (AFAs). According to the information filed, these actions not only foreclosed rival players but also imposed unrelated and burdensome obligations on OEMs, thereby hindering innovation and market access. The alleged conduct fell squarely within potential abuse categories enumerated under Section 4, particularly tying, leveraging of dominance into adjacent markets, and imposing unfair conditions.

According to the Commission, the findings reached by the Deputy General Counsel (DG) through their investigation are highly corroborative of the original allegations made against the company. The DG’s investigation resulted in the following conclusions:

Firstly, the DG determined that “Android Smart TV OS” enjoyed a dominant position within the relevant market (i.e., The “Licensable Smart TV Device Operating System in India”), and that the “Google Play Store” enjoyed a similarly dominant position in the Market for “App Store for Android Smart TV OS” in India. The presence of these two types of dominance illustrates the fact that both of these markets (Operating System Layer and Application Distribution Ecosystem) are vertically integrated and therefore give Google a great, if not complete, amount of control over both.

Secondly, the DG found that the “Television App Distribution Agreement” (TADA) and “Android Compatibility Commitments” (ACC) were executed together as part of a single transaction that imposed unreasonable and/or restrictive requirements on OEMs to develop and/or distribute applications on top of the Android Smart TV OS, including:

• Mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google TV Services Suite;
• Prohibitions against OEMs developing and/or distributing “fork” Androids; and
• Tying together services like YouTube with the Google Play Store creating additional dependencies.

The DG opined that these practices resulted in a reduction of innovation, increased Google’s dominance over OEMs’ entire suites of products and were violations of several provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act. In regard to Section 3(4) allegations of refusal to deal and/or exclusive supply, no finding was made in support of the allegations made, indicating that the presence of such practices is likely to be evaluated using a more nuanced approach to vertical restraints.

Google’s Use of the Settlement Mechanism

After the Director-General’s (DG’s) investigation and findings, Google submitted a Settlement Application under Section 48A using the new Settlement Regulations, 2024. This Settlement Regulations allow companies that have committed violations of the competition law to settle without going through lengthy court proceedings as long as they have the Commission’s approval and pay a settlement amount. The CCI issued an invitation for comments and/or objections to Google’s settlement proposal in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Settlement Regulation from 45 stakeholders.

The order that the Commission issued placed significant emphasis on commitments made by Google under what is referred to as the “New India Agreement.” One of the major commitments that Google made was to provide an independently licensed Play Store and Play Services for Android Smart TVs, which is an important change because it eliminates the previously alleged bundling requirement and the default placement requirements for those services. Additionally, Google agreed to release OEMs from the requirement of maintaining a valid ACC (Authorization Command Centre) in connection with the shipment of devices into India that do not contain Google applications; therefore, the release of this obligation enables OEMs to create and develop Android fork-device solutions without violating TADA (Telecommunications and Digital Communications Act).

Evaluation Of Settlement Conditions

The commission evaluated and approved the settlement proposal based on its assessment of the market impact caused by the violations and their level of seriousness. The final settlement amount, which includes a 15% discount for prepayment, is ₹20.24 crores. The settlement demonstrates that the commission is balancing its responsibilities to enforce laws while also offering a means to resolve them.

Furthermore, the settlement with New India along with other agreements indicates the commission has recognised a new way forward. This means that rather than solely use punishment as a means to deter future behaviour, the commission will also try to improvise on what caused non-compliance through forward-looking commitments made as part of a comprehensive settlement agreement.

The commitments are aimed at eliminating the practices of tying and bundling324 when conducting their business, resulting in an increase in competition in the areas of Android forks345 and alternative app stores.

Implications for Competition Law and Digital Markets

This case serves as a benchmark for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the Commission’s readiness to interpret dominance and anti-competitive behaviour in digital markets through the lens of control over operating systems and app ecosystems. Second, it marks one of the early significant implementations of the Settlement Regulations, showcasing a more flexible regulatory toolkit. Third, by requiring Google to unbundle and relax compatibility constraints, the Commission has shown its inclination to prevent gatekeeper-type behaviour in emerging technological interfaces such as Smart TVs.

The settlement approach also ensures market continuity without the disruptions that might arise from harsh structural remedies. At the same time, it sets a precedent for how global technology firms engaging in multi-layered platform practices will be scrutinized in India.

Conclusion

The CCI approved Google’s settlement proposal related to Android TV, which signifies a significant step towards regulating anti-competitive behaviour while encouraging innovation and fostering competition neutrality among service providers. The CCI shows how regulation can evolve to support digital environments rather than simply punishing bad actors; additionally, it supports OEMs having access to fairly priced software. The settlement amounting to ₹20.24 crores along with commitments made under the ‘New India Agreement’ indicates that the remedy is balanced so that it maintains the current ecosystems’ health while restoring fair competition.²

1. ↩︎
2. ↩︎