[Anmol Jain is a 4th year BCom LLB (Hons.) student at Institute of Law, Nirma University and Swayam Mundhra a 4th year student at Gujarat National Law University]
In December 2022, WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd., a leading Indian Real Money Gaming (RMG) platform, filed a complaint with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging that Google was abusing its dominant market position. The complaint centered on Google’s Pilot Program, which permitted only Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and rummy apps to be published on the Play Store, while excluding other RMG platforms such as WinZO. This selective access raised concerns about exclusionary conduct, discriminatory treatment, and unreasonable conditions, potentially amounting to a violation of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
On November 28, 2024, the CCI, finding a prima facie case, ordered an investigation into WinZO’s complaint. In response, Google submitted a commitment proposal under the newly introduced section 48B of the Act, offering to phase out the Pilot Program and open the Play Store to all RMG apps approved under Indian law, subject to third-party certification.
This article evaluates whether Google’s commitments adequately address the CCI’s concerns relating to discriminatory warnings, market foreclosure, and the disproportionate advantages conferred on DFS and rummy apps during the extended Pilot Program.
Discriminatory Warnings and the Pilot Program’s Competitive Impact
WinZO alleged that Google Pay issued transaction warnings selectively, disadvantaging its platform, while DFS and rummy apps under the Pilot Program were unaffected. Google countered that its warning flags were developer-agnostic and uniformly applied, regardless of transaction speed, frequency of complaints, or order of execution. However, CCI noted discrepancies suggesting that DFS and rummy apps were in fact shielded from such warnings.
The Commission further expressed concern that payment reminders may have been linked to Google’s decision to restrict the Pilot Program to DFS and rummy. If true, this would constitute leveraging under section 4(2)(c) of the Act, as Google would be exploiting its position to channel user trust and traffic toward favoured apps.
Google’s public statement that its practices complied with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) norms failed to clarify why DFS and rummy apps appeared exempt from warnings. Such ambiguity risks creating systemic bias, distorting user perception, and further entrenching competitive disadvantage.
Certification by a “Recognized Third Party”
In its commitment proposal, Google offered to allow all RMG apps on the Play Store, provided they secured clearance from a “recognized third party.” Likewise, advertising of skill-based games would be permitted on similar certification. While this appears to promote inclusivity, the lack of clarity over what constitutes a “recognized third party” undermines the commitment.
Google vaguely referred to industry associations such as AIGF, EGF, or FIFS, entities that have adopted voluntary “Codes of Ethics” but lack statutory mandate or judicial recognition. Granting them gatekeeping authority risks arbitrary recognition, selection bias, and reduced transparency. Without a clear framework, certification could also be susceptible to favourable treatment or conflicts of interest.
A more robust solution would be the creation of a statutorily recognized self-regulatory body, empowered to certify apps, define benchmarks for determining legality, and establish clear criteria for what constitutes a game of skill in India.
The Elusive “Objective Criteria”
Google also suggested that certifiers would be chosen on the basis of “objective criteria.” While ostensibly aimed at neutrality, the absence of defined standards renders this commitment hollow. This ambiguity partly stems from the lack of statutory or industry-wide benchmarks in India’s RMG sector. Yet, leaving “objectivity” undefined risks arbitrariness and erodes confidence in the process.
Foreign jurisdictions provide useful guidance. In the United Kingdom, the Gambling Commission accredits testing houses only if they meet ISO/IEC 17025 standards, comply with Remote Technical Standards, undergo annual audits, and are listed on a public register. Malta and the Isle of Man adopt similar models, requiring accreditation, regulatory approval, and continuous oversight. In the United States of America, regulators in states such as New Jersey approve only independent labs operating under stringent Internet Gaming Technical Standards.
These regimes stress dual accountability: operators remain liable if their certifier fails compliance, while certifiers must report significant ownership or operational changes. Such structured oversight ensures transparency, mitigates conflicts of interest, and makes regulatory enforcement effective. For India, adopting a comparable framework of accreditation, division of responsibility, and ongoing supervision would transform “objective criteria” from vague rhetoric into enforceable safeguards.
Liability for the Extended Pilot Program
The Pilot Program itself remains a critical concern. By restricting access to only DFS and rummy apps for over a year, Google effectively conferred a first-mover advantage in terms of visibility, user acquisition, and revenue. Competing RMG apps were denied exposure during this crucial window, creating long-term market imbalances.
Google’s proposal fails to acknowledge or remedy this distortion. No corrective framework or compensatory mechanism has been suggested. Unless the CCI addresses this imbalance, DFS and rummy operators will retain an entrenched advantage even after broader access is granted.
Restorative justice measures, such as ordering reparations to disadvantaged platforms or imposing penalties under section 27(b) of the Act, should be considered to prevent recurrence. Otherwise, Google’s commitments risk becoming strategic loopholes rather than genuine remedies.
Conclusion
While Google’s commitment proposal gestures towards greater inclusivity, it leaves fundamental issues unresolved. The discriminatory treatment of non-DFS/rummy RMG apps, opacity surrounding payment reminder warnings, and absence of a corrective mechanism for the prolonged Pilot Program remain unaddressed.
The undefined notion of a “recognized third party” and the vague reference to “objective criteria” introduce further uncertainty, undermining transparency and accountability. Comparative international models demonstrate that effective oversight requires statutory recognition, accreditation, and enforceable benchmarks.
The CCI must ensure that Google’s commitments are backed by a clear, legal, and enforceable framework that balances platform autonomy with regulatory accountability. Only then can India’s RMG ecosystem achieve genuine competitive neutrality, where all operators; regardless of format, enjoy fair and equal access to the market.
– Anmol Jain & Swayam Mundhra