CCI dismisses allegations on Google of shutting AdWords bills

by Brett Harper

Competition Commission of India (CCI) has brushed off allegations of unfair business practices made in opposition to Google with recognizing to its advertising platform AdWords. The anti-competition watchdog said that Google did no longer violate any competition norms.

The complaint changed into filed towards Google LLC, Google Ireland Ltd and Google India Pvt Ltd in 2014, by means of a businessman Vishal Gupta of Audney.Com (informant) and tech enterprise Albion InfoTel (informant), alleging that Google is not transparent, abuses its bidding procedure, and indulged in anti-competitive practices with admire to its advertising platform AdWords.  Vishal Gupta, the proprietor of a organisation named Shyam Garment Group of Companies, which additionally operated a USA-registered Delhi Call Centre Pvt Ltd with Audney Inc for tech aid, alleged that Google suspended the tech help enterprise’s Adwords account with none purpose to promote its newly released Remote Tech Support operation Google Helpout, in the USA.


However, Google contended that it terminated the money owed of the Informants because there were repeated extreme violations with the aid of them of the AdWords guidelines and their conduct endangered the cease users.

The Commission examined three issues and cited that Google gives sufficient statistics to advertisers on the overall performance in their commercials and no contravention of the provisions of the Act can be attributed to the Google’s bidding method.

CCI said in its order that Google’s AdWords regulations guard the platform and the stop-users, specifically, the susceptible stop-customers. “ there may be proof on record displaying that the informants’ conduct becomes likely to endanger quit-users of far-flung tech offerings. They time and again devoted more than one violations of the AdWords regulations, demonstrating a regular and persistent pattern of misconduct and person damage (e.g., Thru tactics designed to mislead or exploit customers),” the order stated.

The anti-competition watchdog also stated that AdWords Policies are to be had on the line, and are just one in every of some guidelines that advertisers select to accept when starting an account. Both the Informants, at the same time as beginning their respective debts, agreed to conform with the AdWords Policies. It provides that the commercials that infringe Google’s AdWords guidelines may be “disapproved” or “suspended” until rectified. And reputedly, there were multiple violations of AdWords by using informants including smartphone range policy via which includes smartphone numbers in ad titles, textual content, or visible URLs that lie to users into wondering they might area a name with the aid of clicking at the ad, when in reality they would be redirected to an internet site.

The Commission additionally discovered that there’s no evidence that the termination of the Informants’ debts changed into intended to provide Helpouts with a competitive benefit, and that Helpouts facilitated the alternate of information between experts in various fields (e.G., instructors, private running shoes, medical doctors, domestic repair specialists, interest enthusiasts, and greater) and customers. Service companies ought to provide their services via Helpout’s online video conferencing facility, video posting facility, and display screen-sharing facility. Google itself did no longer provide services to customers through the Helpouts platform but merely acted as a middleman facilitating a connection between the customers and carrier companies.

Google spokesperson in an assertion shared with MediaNama said that “We are thrilled that, after a fundamental analysis, the Commission has shown Google’s conduct to be fair, seasoned-purchaser, and compliant with opposition law. We are devoted to making sure that our customers have a secure experience when clicking on advertisements on our platform.”

However, Competition Commission of India (CCI) Chairperson D K Sikri passed a dissenting word. He stated that “as opposed to passing a very last order below Section 27 of the (Competition) Act, the existing cases must have been referred returned to the DG using the Commission below Section 26 (7) of the Act for also research at the aspects identified above”.

Section 27 pertains to orders passed via the regulator after an inquiry into agreements or abuse of dominant role.

Related Posts