Alliance of Digital India Foundation Vs Alphabet Inc. (Competition Commission of India)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has directed the closure of an antitrust case filed by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF) against Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc. In its order dated August 1st, 2025, the Commission invoked a new provision, Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, concluding that the core issues raised by ADIF had already been substantially examined and decided in previous cases.
The case, No. 23(2) of 2024, centered on allegations that Google abused its dominant position in the market for ‘online search advertising services’ in India by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions on advertisers through its Google Ads Policies.
The Core of the Complaint
ADIF, an industry body representing start-ups and app developers, filed the information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. They argued that Google holds a dominant position in online search advertising, a market distinct from display or offline advertising. According to ADIF, search ads are a form of ‘pull’ advertising, targeting users who have already shown interest in a product, making it non-substitutable with other forms.
The foundation laid out four primary grievances against Google’s Ads Policies, which advertisers must accept non-negotiably:
- Restriction on Third-Party Technical Support Ads: ADIF contended that Google’s global policy prohibiting advertisements for third-party technical support for consumer hardware and software lacked commercial justification in the Indian context and unfairly restricted legitimate service providers.
- Limitations on ‘Call Ads’: Google permits ‘Call Ads’—ads designed to encourage phone calls—only on mobile devices, not on laptops or desktops. ADIF alleged this was an unfair restriction that forced advertisers to use Google’s proprietary ‘Call Assets’ service, limiting choice and functionality.
- Non-Transparent Ad Ranking: The complaint described Google’s ad ranking algorithm, which determines an ad’s position on a search results page, as a “black-box.” ADIF argued this lack of transparency created unfair conditions, allowing Google to potentially manipulate rankings and pricing without accountability.
- Use of Trademarks as Keywords: ADIF took issue with Google’s policy allowing competitors to bid on registered trademarks as keywords. This practice, they argued, forces trademark owners to bid on their own brand names to maintain visibility, imposes unfair costs, and creates a risk of consumer confusion and diversion. They claimed this conduct violated multiple subsections of Section 4 of the Act.
ADIF also made a broad assertion that these abusive policies extended to Google’s online display advertising services but did not provide specific evidence to support this claim.
