Fair trade regulator the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a detailed investigation into Google’s conduct in the online display advertising market on a complaint filed by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF).
In an order passed by CCI on Friday, the regulator said it has decided to club the complaint with ongoing investigations in similar cases and directed the Director General (DG) to carry out a consolidated probe into Google’s conduct in the adtech ecosystem.
“The DG is directed to investigate the various alleged practices of Google in Online Display Advertising services and/ or AdTech intermediation services and submit a consolidated investigation report in the matters, accordingly,” it added.
The order comes in response to a detailed complaint filed by ADIF alleging that Google—through its multiple group entities—has engaged in anti-competitive conduct by self-preferencing its own services in the adtech ecosystem, including tying and bundling of its publisher ad server (DFP) with its ad exchange (AdX), and linking access to YouTube ad inventory with the use of its demand-side platform (DV360).
ADIF, which represents startups, companies and individuals, also alleged that such practices not only harmed publishers and advertisers but also foreclosed the market for competing adtech service providers.
The CCI said that the participation of ADIF, which represents key stakeholders in the startup and digital ecosystem, could bring additional insights to the probe, and there was no legal barrier to clubbing the matter with the ongoing investigation.
The CCI said it was prima facie satisfied that Google’s conduct warranted scrutiny under Section 4 of the Competition Act, which deals with abuse of dominant position.
It directed that the matter be clubbed with four existing cases and a consolidated report be submitted after investigation.
“Allegations made by ADIF in the present matter already form part of the allegations being investigated in the Publishers Case (supra), in terms of the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Act, the commission decides to club the present matter,” the CCI said.
However, in its response, Google denied the allegations, stating that it operates in a competitive adtech market in India, alongside players such as Xandr, Amazon Ads, and Trade Desk. It maintained that its products are interoperable and not tied.
.thumbnailWrapper{
width:6.62rem !important;
}
.alsoReadTitleImage{
min-width: 81px !important;
min-height: 81px !important;
}
.alsoReadMainTitleText{
font-size: 14px !important;
line-height: 20px !important;
}
.alsoReadHeadText{
font-size: 24px !important;
line-height: 20px !important;
}
}
However, the CCI said these aspects will be examined during the investigation.
“We are reviewing the CCI’s orders. We welcome the CCI’s decision to dismiss one part of the complaint. We remain confident that our ongoing work with the CCI will affirm that Google’s advertising practices have consistently benefited advertisers, publishers, and users, and are fully compliant with competition law,” according to a Google spokesperson.
In a separate order, the CCI dismissed a complaint filed by ADIF against Google, concluding that the allegations raised were already examined and settled in previous cases.
The CCI said it is not convinced by the reasons stated by ADIF for distinguishing its allegations from the issues examined in previous orders passed by the regulator. “The issues examined in the previous order may be ‘the same’ or ‘substantially the same’.
“Therefore, the present matter is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of section 26(2A) of the Act,” the regulator added.
ADIF had cited four main concerns, including prohibition on third-party technical support advertisements, restrictions on ‘Call Ads’ on desktops, lack of transparency in ad rankings, and allowing competitors to bid on trademarked keywords.
“All the four instances of alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies, as raised by ADIF in the present matter, have already been examined in substance and set to rest by the commission in its previous decisions,” the competition watchdog said.
