The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recalled its prima facie direction against Google and closed the inquiry, holding that the supervening blanket prohibition on online money games has rendered the alleged discriminatory conduct and the reliefs sought incapable of implementation. The Commission recalled its Section 26(1) direction dated Nov 28, 2024, and closed the inquiry under Section 36(1) of the Competition Act read with Regulation 3 of the General Regulations 2024, exercising inherent powers in light of the extraordinary combination of supervening legislation, absence of any lawful remedy, advanced stage of commitment proceedings, voluntary cessation of the impugned conduct by Google, and the Informant’s request for withdrawal.
The Commission explained that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on Aug 22, 2025, and came into force on May 01, 2026, brought about a fundamental change in the legal framework by imposing a complete and game-neutral prohibition on the offering, advertising and payment facilitation of online money games under Sections 5, 6 and 7 respectively, without distinguishing between games of skill and games of chance. Accordingly, the Commission held that the reliefs originally sought by Winzo, including a direction requiring Google to admit all Real Money Games (RMG) applications to Google Play and to permit their advertisements, can no longer be granted, as such directions would directly run contrary to Sections 5 and 6 of the Online Gaming Act, and that no meaningful relief survives in the matter.
The Commission rejected Google’s prayer for permission to file a revised commitment to close the Pilot Program and prohibit RMG advertisements, observing that closing the Pilot, prohibiting advertisements and discontinuing payment facilitation are mandatory statutory requirements and not voluntary measures that can be offered as a negotiated competition remedy. Lastly, the Commission expressly reserved the right to take cognizance of any alleged anti-competitive conduct by Google under Sections 19 and 26 of the Act if the relevant provisions of the Online Gaming Act are stayed, struck down, repealed or otherwise cease to operate, while clarifying that the closure records no finding on the merits of the impugned conduct.
The Coram of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) observed that the Online Gaming Act brought about a fundamental change in the legal framework governing online real money games, with three provisions being directly relevant. Section 5 prohibiting any person from offering or aiding online money games, Section 6 prohibiting advertisements promoting online money games, and Section 7 prohibiting banks and financial institutions from facilitating payments for online money gaming services, all without distinguishing between games of skill and games of chance.
The Commission noted that the Online Gaming Act stipulates a complete and game-neutral prohibition, leaving no room for discretionary selection of one category of real money games to the exclusion of others, and that there is no longer a lawful RMG market on Play Store or Google Ads which can be opened to one category of game developers while being denied to another. The Commission further observed that the reliefs originally sought by the Informant cannot now be granted, as a direction requiring Google to admit all real-money gaming applications to Google Play or to permit their advertisements would run contrary to Sections 5 and 6 of the Online Gaming Act.
The Commission also observed that proceedings under the Act are inquisitorial and in rem, and the Informant is not the dominus litis, and accordingly, the Commission is not bound to close a matter merely because an Informant no longer wishes to pursue it. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 744], the Commission noted that a direction under Section 26(1) of the Act is merely an administrative direction to the Commission’s investigative wing and does not determine the rights or obligations of the parties.
Referring to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Google Inc. v. Competition Commission of India [2015 SCC OnLine Del 8992], the Commission observed that it possesses the power to recall an order passed under Section 26(1) of the Act, though such power must be exercised sparingly and only where the Commission can conclude without entering into any factual controversy that the information no longer warrants investigation. The Commission further noted that closing the Pilot Program, prohibiting advertisements and discontinuing payment facilitation are not voluntary measures that may be offered in exchange for conclusion of commitment proceedings, but are requirements of law, and accepting such an offer may amount to treating mandatory statutory compliance as a negotiated competition remedy.
Briefly, Winzo Games Private Limited, a digital gaming and technology company operating under the brand name ‘WinZo’ offering over 100 games in 5 formats across more than 12 regional languages, filed an Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Google India Private Limited and Google India Digital Services Private Limited, alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Act. The Informant alleged that Google, which operates ‘Google Play’ as the App Store for Android Operating System, restricted hosting of Real Money Games (RMGs) in India and, on Sep 07, 2022, commenced a Pilot Program limited only to Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy apps for a period of one year, thereby allegedly discriminating against other RMG apps. It was further alleged that from Nov 21, 2022, Google restricted its advertisement policy to only allow DFS and Rummy app advertisers to host advertisements through Google Ads, and that Google Pay displayed arbitrary warnings when users attempted to make payments for skill-based games. Based on these allegations, Winzo claimed violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Act and sought interim relief under Section 33.
The Commission, vide order under Section 26(1) of the Act, formed a prima facie view that the relevant markets were (a) market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India; (b) market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India; and (c) market for online search advertising services in India, and that Google was prima facie dominant in these markets and in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Act, and accordingly directed the Director General (DG) to investigate.
During the investigation, Google filed a Commitment Application under Section 48B of the Act read with the Competition Commission of India (Commitment) Regulations, 2024, which was revised twice, proposing to open Google Play and Google Ads to all legally permissible skill-based RMGs subject to third-party certification. During the pendency of the commitment proceedings, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 was passed by both Houses of Parliament on Aug 21, 2025, and received the President’s assent on Aug 22, 2025, coming into force on May 01, 2026. Google thereafter closed the RMG Pilot Program and ceased accepting RMG advertisements from January 2026, and the Informant voluntarily sought to withdraw the Information during the oral hearing on Aug 25, 2026, citing the change in law.
