Partners: Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Gautam Chawla, Rudresh Singh, Senior Associates: Ishaan Chakrabarti, Ujwala Adikey, Associates: Sarthak Mishra, Varunavi Bangia, and Umang Chaturvedi

Key Developments

India’s first antitrust settlement: Google resolves Android TV probe with the CCI

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued its first-ever settlement order in the Android TV investigation, marking a new chapter in antitrust enforcement. On 21 April 2025, the CCI accepted a settlement application filed by Google in its Smart TV antitrust case, under the CCI (Settlement) Regulations, 2024 (Settlement Regulations 2024).¹ This case sets an important precedent for antitrust settlements in India, offering insights into how ongoing and future cases may be resolved through this mechanism. As a result of the settlement order, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) will have more licensing options for obtaining the Android TV license, while manufacturing android TV devices.

The investigation, initiated in June 2021, examined Google’s conduct concerning its Android TV licensing agreements with smart TV manufacturers.² The Director General (DG) (the investigative arm of the CCI) was of the view that Google:

• imposed unfair conditions through its Television App Distribution Agreement (TADA),
• engaged in illegal tying of YouTube with Play Store,
• restricted development of Android forks, and
• enforced Android Compatibility Commitments (ACC) that denied market access to competing operating systems (OS), each violating various provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended) (Competition Act).

Under the Settlement Regulations 2024, enterprises under investigation may settle cases by demonstrating co-operation and proposing remedial commitments. Google’s application was accepted via a majority order, following outreach to 45 stakeholders, including Microsoft and Netflix.

Google agreed to implement key behavioural changes for five years, including:

• offering a standalone India-specific Play Store license (called the New India Agreement (NIA)) to all OEMs, which allows them the option to license Google Play Store and Google Play Services (GPS) for a fee. The NIA, amongst other things, does not require the OEM to pre-install any of the apps made part of Google’s suite of TV apps (such as YouTube);
• waiving the ACC requirement for TV devices sold in India that do not carry Google apps; and
• communicating to OEMs that they could develop smart TVs using competing OS like Roku or Tizen.


Figure 1: Changes to Google’s licensing practices pursuant to the settlement

Google argued it should not face penalties under the Settlement Regulations 2024, claiming that Android TV (i) earns minimal revenue, (ii) promotes competition, and (iii) shows no evidence of stakeholder harm in India. Google also argued that the penalty calculation should exclude YouTube and Play Store revenues due to their limited role and separate licensing. However, the CCI disagreed, finding these revenues to be tied to Google’s practices in question and intrinsically linked to the relevant market.

The CCI settled with Google subject to payment of a discounted settlement amount of INR 20.24 crore, significantly lower than previous fines against Google (e.g., INR 1,377.76 crore in the smartphones Android OS case).³ The CCI applied reductions on the base amount after considering mitigating factors (such as the competition compliance programme put in place by Google). The CCI applied a 15% discount on this reduced base amount, in accordance with the Settlement Regulations 2024.

It is interesting to note that in a dissenting opinion, one member noted that the settlement proposal does not eliminate the existing arrangements under TADA which were prima facie found to be anti-competitive by the CCI. The dissent noted that instead of two separate agreements, there should only be one agreement with or without a fee that is compliant with the provisions of the Competition Act.

Supreme Court clarifies key concepts around abuse of dominance

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the Competition Appellate Tribunal’s (COMPAT) 2014 ruling and dismissed the CCI’s findings of abuse of dominance against Schott India.⁴ The verdict marks a pivotal shift in the jurisprudence under Section 4 of the Competition Act, reinforcing the necessity of effects-based analysis and procedural fairness in abuse of dominance cases. The case dates back to 2010, when Kapoor Glass filed a complaint against Schott India, alleging certain abusive conduct, such as:

• exclusionary volume discounts,
• discriminatory functional rebates,
• refusal to supply, and
• tying.

While the CCI in 2012 had found Schott India’s conduct to be in contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act and imposed a penalty of INR 5.66 crore, the COMPAT reversed the findings in 2014. The Supreme Court has now upheld the COMPAT’s view.



Figure 2: Core Findings of the Supreme Court in the Schott Glass Case

Core findings of the Supreme Court

• Discounts based on purchase volumes and/or additional services offered by the purchaser and minimum offtake requirements by a dominant enterprise do not violate the Competition Act so long as they are neutral, objectively justified, and uniformly applied.
• The long-term tubing supply agreement did not cause anti-competitive effects in the market. There was no evidence of margin squeeze, given that independent converters remained profitable.
• Schott India’s insistence for converters to purchase two types of glass tubes as a condition for obtaining discount was not found to be anti-competitive. This was because of an absence of evidence of competitive harm, and the presence of objective justifications, such as manufacturing efficiency.
• An effects-based inquiry is integral and explicitly required for an analysis under Section 4 of the Competition Act. The CCI undertook no credible assessment of harm, and no appreciable adverse effect on competition is shown. The omission of a proper harm analysis vitiates the CCI’s order.
• The proceedings before the DG and the CCI were procedurally defective for the following reasons:
1. denial of cross-examination by the CCI on procedural grounds; and
2. reliance on witness statements without independent verification.

The CCI and the DG must offer the right to cross-examination, especially where the findings rely on witness statements. Any denial of such right can lead to substantive procedural lapses that can result in dismissal of the complaint at the threshold stage itself.

The Supreme Court also emphasised the importance of a balanced and prudent enforcement of competition law to foster innovation, efficiency, and economic growth without stifling successful enterprises.

CCI penalises UFO Moviez and Qube Cinema for exclusive content practices; NCLAT refuses interim relief

The CCI has penalised UFO Moviez, its subsidiary Scrabble Digital, and Qube Cinema Technologies (Qube) with INR 2.69 crore for engaging in anti-competitive conduct.⁵ The CCI found that the parties had entered into exclusive supply arrangements with cinema theatre owners, violating the Competition Act. The CCI held that these arrangements restricted market access and competition in two key segments: (i) digital cinema equipment; and (ii) post-production processing.

Post-production processing helps convert films to digital formats, and digital cinema equipment is required to exhibit them in theatres. Accordingly, lease agreements between such providers and cinema theatre owners are crucial for a film to be exhibited in a theatre.



Figure 3: Indian Digital Cinema Supply Chain

Key findings of the CCI

The CCI found that the lease agreements contained exclusive sourcing and refusal-to-deal clauses, which amounted to tie-in arrangements that distorted competition. Further, the digital-cinema equipment supplied by UFO Moviez/Qube was configured to lock in cinema-theatre owners with a single supplier, leading to foreclosure. The CCI ultimately ordered the removal of these restrictive clauses while imposing a cumulative penalty of INR 2.69 crore.

UFO Moviez and Qube challenged the CCI order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), seeking an interim stay. However, in an order passed on 9 June 2025, the NCLAT declined to grant interim relief on the remedial action, emphasising that:

• the clauses clearly showed prima facie tie-in arrangements;
• there was no compelling evidence of irreparable loss; and
• the balance of convenience and public interest weighed against the appellants.⁶

The NCLAT directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the penalty, with a stay on recovery of the remaining penalty.⁷ The case remains pending for final adjudication.

Kerala High Court settles crucial aspects of the jurisdictional overlap between the TRAI and the CCI

In a landmark judgment passed by a single judge bench of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge Decision), clear jurisdictional lines have been drawn between the CCI and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).⁸ The Court held that both bodies are sectoral regulators with distinct but occasionally overlapping mandates. The Court ruled that the CCI’s jurisdiction over abuse of dominance remains intact even in regulated sectors like broadcasting.

The case arose from allegations by Asianet Digital Network (Asianet), a multi-system operator, against Star India Private Limited (Star India) and Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (KCCL). Asianet claimed that Star India abused its dominant position by:

• offering discriminatory discounts to KCCL, a competitor of Asianet, under the garb of marketing agreements that went beyond permissible limits set under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act); and
• denying market access to Asianet as it was unable to compete with market players who benefitted from Star India’s discriminatory discounts.

When the CCI found a prima facie case and directed the DG to investigate, Star India challenged this direction. Star India argued that the TRAI, not the CCI, should handle the matter, claiming the issues were primarily about pricing and distribution in the telecom and broadcasting sector. The case went to the Bombay High Court, which dismissed it due to a lack of jurisdiction. Star India then approached the Kerala High Court, which considered the jurisdictional overlap between the two regulatory bodies. The Kerala High Court addressed four key questions and held that:

• both the Competition Act and the TRAI Act are special legislations in their respective domains;
• the TRAI is competent to adjudicate violations of licensing conditions and its own regulations;
• the CCI retains exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving the three aspects of competition law regulation, i.e., the (i) prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, (ii) prohibition of abuse of dominant position and (iii) regulation of combinations; and
• some overlap in sectoral scope does not oust the jurisdiction of one regulator at the expense of another.

Star India has appealed the judgment before a division bench of the Court, which has temporarily stayed the Single Judge Decision pending further hearing. The matter remains pending before the Court.

CCI issues an updated diagnostic tool for public procurement officers

On 20 May 2025, the CCI released an updated Diagnostic Tool for Public Procurement Officers (Toolkit) aimed at empowering public procurement officers to design and implement competition-efficient tendering systems.⁹ Recognising the role of public procurement in economic efficiency and service delivery, the Toolkit serves as a practical guide to help procurement officials detect and prevent bid rigging.

The Toolkit is structured as a self-assessment guide, helping officers evaluate procurement practices across five stages: planning, design, selection, execution, and monitoring. It includes detailed checklists and diagnostic questions to detect red flags such as repetitive winning patterns, identical bids, and suspicious pricing. It also outlines industry characteristics and government practices that enable collusion, such as limited bidder participation, lack of technological change, or restrictive qualification norms.

The Toolkit forms part of the CCI’s advocacy measures, and draws from both national and international policy documents as well as the CCI’s practical experiences.

CCI issues revised FAQs on merger control

On 20 May 2025, the CCI issued the revised Frequently Asked Questions on combinations (FAQ), providing essential clarifications to the updated merger control framework introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, and its supporting regulations.¹⁰ These FAQs offer crucial guidance across several areas of Indian merger control, such as: (i) providing an indicative list of control conferring rights; (ii) clarity on computation of the deal value thresholds; and (iii) guidance on what information is considered as commercially sensitive information, amongst other things. (To read our detailed overview of the key clarifications, click here.)

Supreme Court reinstates the CCI’s independence to accept remedies after issuance of show cause notice, without a detailed investigation

In a significant review judgment dated 16 May 2025, the Supreme Court revisited its landmark decision from January 2025, which had mandated prior approval from the CCI before the committee of creditors could approve a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (to read our update on the earlier ruling, click here).

The January 2025 decision, among other things, held that the procedure for investigation in merger control cases under the Competition Act was to be mandatorily followed once a prima facie opinion is formed. In doing so, the Supreme Court construed the provisions in a manner such that the CCI did not have the independence to accept remedies after issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) without directing a full investigation by the DG.

However, in its review, the Supreme Court accepted the CCI’s argument and held that while the issuance of an SCN is mandatory upon formation of a prima facie opinion, the DG investigation is discretionary and not automatic.¹¹ The Supreme Court also restored the CCI’s review process, allowing combinations to be cleared in the initial stage if concerns are adequately addressed or voluntary modifications are offered.

[1] Kshitiz Arya Purushottam Anand v Google LLC and Ors. (Case No. 19 of 2020), available here. (Section 48A (3) Order)          

[2] Kshitiz Arya Purushottam Anand v Google LLC and Ors. (Case No. 19 of 2020), available here. (Section 26(1) Order) 

[3] Mr. Umar Javeed and Ors. v Google LLC and Anr. (Case No. 39 of 2018), available here.

[4] CCI v Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2014), available here.

[5] PF Digital Media Services Ltd. & Anr. v UFO Moviez India Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 11 of 2020), available here.

[6] Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v CCI & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 8 of 2025), available here.

[7] This was clarified by the NCLAT’s order on 11 June 2025, available here.

[8] Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd. v CCI & Ors. (WP(C) No. 29766 of 2022), available here.

[9] Diagnostics Tool for Public Procurement Officers, available here.

[10] Frequently Asked Questions on Combinations, available here.

[11] CCI v Independent Sugar Corporation Limited and Anr. (Review Petition No. 482 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4924 of 2023), available here.

If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.