Liberty’s primary allegation was regarding the illegal suspension of its developer account on the Google Play Store without prior notice or precisely stated reasons. Liberty also alleged that Google’s opaque and templatised appeal responses deprived Liberty of a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision, resulting in denial of market access and commercial prejudice.

The CCI, relying on its previous decisional practice,^[2] found that although Google holds a dominant position in the relevant market for app stores for Android OS in India, its behaviour had not been discriminatory or abusive. After considering the information on record, the CCI found that Google’s actions were consistent with its published policies, which had previously been examined by the CCI without finding any contravention of the Competition Act. Further, the CCI accepted Google’s explanations regarding the rationale for not disclosing detailed evidence and Google’s reasons for termination. The CCI found Google’s appeals process to be reasonable and consistent across jurisdictions. The CCI also noted that the combination of automated and human review in Google’s appeals process was not inherently unfair or discriminatory.

Therefore, the CCI held that no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act was made out.

NCLAT partially upholds Meta’s appeal in WhatsApp privacy case

On 4 November 2025, the NCLAT issued its judgement partially upholding the appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp against the CCI’s order concerning WhatsApp’s 2021 update to its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.^[3]

The NCLAT set aside the CCI’s finding of anti-competitive leveraging under Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act and the remedy relating user data sharing with other Meta entities for advertising purposes. The NCLAT upheld the remainder of the CCI’s order, including the other remedies and penalty of INR 213.14 crore imposed on WhatsApp and Meta.

CCI orders investigation into Basketball Federation of India

On 25 November 2025, the CCI directed the DG to investigate the Basketball Federation of India (BFI), based on an information filed by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited.^[4]

The CCI found that BFI’s conduct of restricting players, referees, and coaches to participate only in BFI-sanctioned events and discouraging participation in unauthorised leagues prima facie amounted to restraints in the nature of exclusive distribution and refusal to deal.

The CCI further found that BFI prima facie holds a dominant position in the relevant market for the organisation of basketball leagues / events / tournaments in India.  It noted that BFI allegedly imposed unfair and arbitrary restrictions on participation in non-BFI events and denied market access to private organisers, thereby limiting players’ freedom of choice and foreclosing private league activity.  Therefore, given BFI’s prima facie dominance in the relevant market, these practices could amount to limiting / restricting services, denial of market access, and related restraints under the Competition Act.

Merger Control

CCI imposes penalty for gun jumping in debenture conversion case

On 31 July 2025, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 20,00,000 on Manipal Health Systems Private Limited (MHSPL) for consummating part of a notifiable transaction prior to filing a notice and obtaining approval from the CCI.^[5]

The proceedings arose from a notice filed by MHSPL and MEMG Family Office LLP in respect of their proposed acquisitions in Aakash Educational Services Limited (AESL). Part of the transaction involved an acquisition by MHSPL of 39.61% of the share capital of AESL on post-issue fully diluted basis, pursuant to the conversion of debentures to equity shares upon an event of default by AESL. Although the allotment took place in January 2024, the transaction was only notified in May 2024. Thus, the CCI concluded that the parties had implemented a notifiable transaction prior to filing and receipt of approval from the CCI, constituting gun jumping.

The parties argued that the allotment was triggered by multiple uncured events of default under the debenture trust deed, necessitating conversion to protect stakeholder interests and preserve AESL as a going concern. In particular, the financial distress of one of AESL’s key shareholders created an urgent risk for AESL if creditor action was initiated; AESL was in a weakened financial position, with risks to its ability to continue as a going concern and adverse impact on approx. 4 lakh students and over 10,000 employees if conversion was delayed; and the conversion was a consequence of the default by AESL, and hence, MHSPL was compelled to protect its rights and interests. Further, in terms of mitigating factors, the parties argued that the transaction did not cause any appreciable adverse effect on competition; no special contractual rights were acquired by MHSPL; and MHSPL acted bona fide, engaged transparently with the CCI through pre-filing consultations, and cooperated fully.

In relation to the penalty imposed, the CCI noted that the statute prescribes a maximum ceiling but allows consideration of conduct and case circumstances. The parties’ voluntary disclosure, cooperation, and mitigating factors advanced were considered by the CCI in taking a lenient view. Accordingly, a penalty of INR 20,00,000 was imposed under Section 43A of the Competition Act.

Challenges to the powers of the CCI

NCLAT reaffirms CCI’s lack of jurisdiction in patent licensing cases

On 30 October 2025, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. Swapan Dey in relation to allegations of anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance against Vifor International (AG) (Vifor) with respect to Ferric Carboxymaltose injections.^[6]

Vifor challenged the jurisdiction of the CCI and argued that since the molecule is governed by the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act), the CCI has no jurisdiction to consider issues concerning licensing conditions.

The NCLAT noted that the CCI had closed the case against Vifor on merits. The NCLAT also noted that the patent on the drug had expired, making it available in the public domain for manufacturing. Further, the NCLAT, relying on the judgment in the Ericsson case, reaffirmed that the Patents Act will prevail over the Competition Act on the facts of the case.^[7] Thus, the CCI lacked jurisdiction to examine the allegations made against Vifor.

CCI not empowered to impose interest retrospectively

On 1 November 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled that the CCI is not empowered to impose interest on a penalty retrospectively, or from a date preceding the valid service of a demand notice.^[8]

By way of background, the CCI had found Geep Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Geep Industries) and its directors guilty of engaging in cartelisation in the Dry Cell Batteries market in India and imposed a penalty. The CCI’s penalty order was appealed before the NCLAT, which reduced the penalty amount in relation to Geep Industries but not its directors. Subsequently, the CCI issued a demand notice to the parties, wherein the interest was calculated from the 91st day from the receipt of the CCI’s penalty order, rather than from the date of the demand notice.

On appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the issuance of a demand notice under the CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 is a mandatory precondition before any interest can be levied. Therefore, the CCI could not impose interest based on the date of the original penalty order.

CCI not empowered to charge interest on stayed penalty

On 1 November 2025, the Delhi High Court held that the CCI’s demand for interest on a stayed, and subsequently reduced, penalty was arbitrary and contrary to law.^[9]

The decision arose out of an appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Limited (UIICL). The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) had modified the CCI’s final order by substantially reducing the quantum of penalty imposed on UIICL. UIICL had paid the reduced penalty promptly. However, the CCI claimed interest on the original penalty amount, on the basis of a demand notice that was served during the subsistence of the COMPAT’s stay. The Delhi High Court observed that this was both contrary to the regulatory framework and inequitable, as it penalised a party for lawfully pursuing appellate relief. The Delhi High Court therefore allowed UIICL’s appeal and absolved it of any liability to pay interest.

Footnote

^[1]      Liberty Infospace Pvt. Ltd. v Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and Google India Pvt. Ltd., CCI, Case No. 07 of 2025 (6 October 2025).

^[2]      Umar Javeed & Ors. v Google LLC & Ors., CCI, Case No. 39 of 2018.

^[3]      WhatsApp LLC v Competition Commission of India & Ors., Competition Appeal (AT) No. 1 of 2025 (4 November 2025) and Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., Competition Appeal (AT) No. 2 of 2025 (4 November 2025).

^[4]      Elite Pro Basketball Pvt. Ltd. v Basketball Federation of India, CCI, Case No. 10 of 2024 (25 November 2025).

^[5]      Manipal Health Systems Private Limited and MEMG Family Office LLP, CCI, Combination Registration No. C-2024/05/1142 (31 July 2025).

^[6]      Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India and Vifor International (AG), Competition Appeal (AT) No. 05 of 2023 (30 October 2025).

^[7]      Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Supreme Court, SLP(C) No. 25026/2023 (2 September 2025); Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India, High Court of Delhi, LPA 247/2016 (13 July 2023).

^[8]      Competition Commission of India v Geep Industries & Ors., High Court of Delhi, LPA 727/2024 (1 November 2025).

^[9]      United India Insurance Company Limited v. Competition Commission of India, High Court of Delhi, LPA 724/2019 (1 November 2025).

Read Less-