Skip to main content

ANTITRUST LAW AGAINST GOOGLE

  ANTITRUST LAW AGAINST GOOGLE

INTRODUCTION

Google had been sued by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for antitrust violations. Google was accused by the Department of Justice of illegally establishing a monopoly in general search services and search advertising.

According to the DOJ, Google utilises its financial clout to bribe mobile phone manufacturers, carriers, and browsers to keep Google as their default search engine, creating a self-reinforcing dominance cycle.According to the allegations, these illicit trade practises result in an unprecedented concentration of market power in the hands of digital platforms such as Google.


ALLEGATIONS

In the digital economy, Google is one of the most important companies. It has positioned itself as a global leader in the Internet ecosystem due to its inventiveness. Google has built leading digital products based on a review of this. Google's licenced operating system, Android, for example, dominates the smartphone market, while the Chrome browser dominates desktops and mobiles. Because of Android's popularity, Google can charge a whopping 30% fee on apps sold through the Android Play Store. According to this, Google is accused of abusing its position of dominance to promote other businesses it owns.

Google was fined a record 4.3 billion euros in the EU for anti-competitive actions, and was ordered to provide Android users a choice of four default browsers. In 2019, the Indian Competition Commission found Google guilty of abusing its dominant position in the mobile Android market by imposing "unfair conditions" on device manufacturers to prevent them from using rival operating systems.


ANTITRUST LAW IN INDIA

The goal of antitrust law, also known as competition law, is to defend trade and commerce against unfair constraints, monopolies, and price fixing. It assures that in an open-market economy, there is fair competition.

India has its own version of competition law for 40 years, which was created by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969. (MRTP Act). This legislation, which was based on the principles of a "command and control" economy, was intended to establish a regulatory regime in the country that would prevent the concentration of economic power in a few hands that would be detrimental to the public interest, and thus prohibit any monopolistic and restrictive trade practises.

The Competition Act, 2002 is India’s antitrust law. It repealed and replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) on the recommendations of the Raghavan committee.



CONCLUSION

When a sector develops a monopoly or has a highly concentrated market share, regulators must ensure that competition is not suffocated through unethical tactics. India's own Competition Commission should explore being more involved in the regulation of areas where concentrations are occurring, such as telecom, retail, ports, and airports. The new tax framework should reflect the nature of global digital business models and avoid double-taxation as a result of tax efforts. As a result, governments and businesses must collaborate to create an effective tax structure that harmonises worldwide tax standards.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more