Source: http://journals.christuniversity.in/index.php/culj/article/view/1905
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:39:10+00:00

Document:
For a long time, there has been uncertainty and uneasiness regarding the application of competition law in the digital ecosystem. It is only recently that the evolving Indian competition regime has started facing some of these concerns. In the light of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) recent encounter with the search-technology giant Google, the paper provides a much needed analysis of the watershed judgment, considering the likely effects it will have on future competition law jurisprudence. CCI has for the first time, by comprehensively analysing the interplay of antitrust laws and tech market, laid down the basic ground work for subsequent cases. The paper begins with probing into the logic and rationale given by CCI in assessing the relevant market, and Google’s dominant position in such relevant market. Later, the paper examines if the unique features of digital markets have been incorporated, while analyzing Google’s specialized search designs, namely Universal Results, OneBoxes and Commercial Units. Drawing attention to some key concerns like the lack of evidence-based analysis by CCI, the paper concludes by suggesting a suitable remedy and summarizing the key takeaways from the discourse.
1.	Geetanjali Sharma, Competition law and E-Commerce: Emerging Trends, Vol. 1 Issue 3, ICLR, 13, 5-15 (2016) http:// www.iclr.in/assets/pdf/ICLR%20Volume%201%20(First%20Article).pdf.
2.	ET Bureau, Google told to pay Rs 135.86 crore fine for abusing its power in India, (New Delhi, Mumbai)(February 09, 2018) https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/cci-issues-order-against-google-for-search-bias/articleshow/62838992.cms (last accessed on April 04, 2018).
3.	Matrimony.Com Limited vs Google Llc& Others, CCI, Case Nos. 07 and 30, 2012 (hereinafter Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012).
6.	Smriti Parsheera, Ajay Shah and Avirup Bose, Competition Issues in India’s Online Economy, NIPFP Working paper series No. 194, (2017), http://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2017/04/WP_2017_194.pdf. (last accessed on April 16, 2018).
8.	Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012, para 98.
9.	Id. at para 94.
10.	Id. at para 100.
11.	See Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Failure to identify a relevant market is a proper ground for dismissing a [monopolization] claim.”).
12.	Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal.com, Case No. 17, 2014,CCI; See also Mr. Deepak Verma v. Clues Network Pvt. Ltd, CCI, Case No. 34, 2016.
13.	Confederation of Real Estate Brokers’ Association of India v. Magicbricks.com and others, Case No. 23, 2016, CCI at para 11.
15.	Am. Online, Inc. v. GreatDeals.Net, 49 F. Supp. 2d 851, 858 (E.D. Va. 1999) (quoting Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 456, 459 (E.D. Pa. 1996)).
16.	Michal S GAL, Competition Policy for Small Market Economies, Harvard University Press (2009).
17.	Dominance does not exist in the abstract, but in relation to a particular market. See Case 6/72 Continental Can v. Commission; See also United Brands v. Commission, European Court Reports 1978 -00207; L’Oréal v. PVBA De Nieuwe, Case 31/80  ECR 3775,  2 CMLR 235.
18.	Business News: Analytics, Definition of ‘AdWords’, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/adwords (last Accessed on 02 December, 2018).
19.	Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012 at para 115.
20.	Id. at para 117.
21.	Dr. Maria Maher, Paul Reynolds, Paul Muysert and Dr. Fred Wandschneider, Executive Summary, Resetting competition policy frameworks for the digital ecosystem , (October 2016), https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GSMA_Resetting-Competition_Report_Oct-2016_60pp_WEBv2.pdf.
22.	See Robert H. Bork, Antitrust and Google, CHI. TRIB. 1, (Apr. 6, 2012), at 19, http://artictes.chicagotribune.comV20l2-04-06/news/ct-perspec-0405-bork-20120406-1 unpaidsearch-results-search-engines-search-algorithms.
23.	See Google Senate Antitrust Subcommittee Hearing 3, (Statement of Sen. Michael S. Lee, "Given its dominant position, most internet-based businesses rely on Google for a substantial share of their traffic in revenues.").
24.	SeeCarolanne Mangles, Search Engine Statistics 2018, (Jan. 30, 2018), https://www.smartinsights.com/search-engine-marketing/search-engine-statistics/ (last accessed on April 13, 2018).
25.	See Geoffrey A. Manne and Joshua D. Wright, If Search Neutrality Is the Answer What's the Question? 7 Int'l Ctr. for Law & Economics White Paper Series, (2011) https://laweconcenter.org/ images/ articles/ search_neutrality_manne_wright_final.pdf.
26.	European Commission - Press release, Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service, (June 27, 2017) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm. (last accessed on April 09, 2018).
29.	Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012 at para 30.
30.	Google’s registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Prospectus summary, (August 18, 2004) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504143377/d424b4.htm (last accessed on April 05, 2018).
31.	Google’s registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Letter from the Founders “An Owner’s Manual” for Google’s Shareholders, (August 18, 2004) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504143377/d424b4.htm (last accessed on April 05, 2018).
32.	National Public Radio, CEO: Google Knows A Lot About You, Then Forgets, (October 02, 2009) https://www.npr.org/ 2009/ 10/ 02/ 113450803/ceo-google-knows-a-lot-about-you-then-forgets (last accessed on April 05, 2018).
33.	Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012 at para 253.
34.	Dissent Note dated 08.02.2018 in Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012 at para 31.
35.	European Commission - Press release, Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service, (June 27, 2017) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm. (last accessed on April 09, 2018).
39.	§26(7), The Competition Act, 2002, Act No. 12 of 2003, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
42.	J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy, 3 New York: Harper Perennial (1950).
44.	Avirup Bose and Smriti Parsheera, Network Effects in India’s Online Businesses: A Competition Law Analysis, (Sept 30, 2016), http://www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2017_pa14_pa2.pdf.
45.	DikerVanberg, A, ‘From Archie to Google -Search engine providers and emergent challenges in relation to EU competition law’, 3 EJLT (2012), http://ejlt.org/article/view/115/198.
46.	Marvin Ammori and Luke Pelican, Why Search Bias Claims Against Google Don't Hold Up, (June 7, 2012), https://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/07/why-search-bias-claims-against-google-dont-hold-up/#eb5ac06f7faa.
J.L. & TECH. 188, 189 (2006). https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1112&context=facpubs.
49.	Google Transparency Report, https://transparencyreport.google.com/ (last accessed on April 18, 2018).
52.	US Department of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (September, 2008), https:// www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act (last accessed on April 20, 2018).
53.	Competition Commission Of India vs Steel Authority Of India &Anr, (2010) Comp LR 0061; See also Namrata Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42783 of 2013.
54.	See Richard A. Posner, 'Antitrust in the New Economy' John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 106, 9 (2000).
55.	Antitrust Regulation 1/2003, Article 9(1).
57.	M/S. Crown Theatre vs Kerala Film Exhibitors, Case No. 16 of 2014.
60.	SeeJonathan Zittrain, The Un-Microsoft Un-Remedy: Law Can Prevent the Problem that It Can't Patch Later, 31 CONN. L. REV. 1361, 1361-62 (1999).
BHAMORE, Suyash. Decrypting Google’s Search Engine Bias Case: Anti-Trust Enforcement in the Digital Age. Christ University Law Journal, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 37-60, jan. 2019. ISSN 2278-4322. Available at: <http://journals.christuniversity.in/index.php/culj/article/view/1905>. Date accessed: 19 apr. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.14.2.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
	§26
 v.