Platform rules and plugin delisting do not establish abuse of dominance where removal follows repeated guideline violations.

The CCI identified the relevant markets as content management software in India and the WordPress-specific plugin directories market in India, and found dominance on the available material in both markets. It held that the delisting and banning of the informant's plugins did not amount to abuse of dominance because the platform applied uniform developer guidelines, the informant had repeatedly violated those rules despite warnings, and the action was justified by persistent non-compliance rather than anticompetitive intent. The self-preferencing allegation also failed because the informant's plugin and Jetpack were found to differ substantially in scope and function. As no prima facie contravention was made out, the matter was closed under Section 26(2), interim relief under Section 33 was refused, and confidentiality was granted for specified material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant market for examining the impugned conduct was the market for content management software in India and the WordPress-specific plugin directories market in India, and whether the opposite party was dominant therein; (ii) Whether the delisting and banning of the informant's plugins amounted to abuse of dominant position by way of denial of market access, unfair or discriminatory conduct, or self-preferencing; (iii) Whether the information disclosed a prima facie contravention warranting action under Section 26(2) and interim relief under Section 33, and whether confidentiality deserved to be granted over specified material.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant market for examining the impugned conduct was the market for content management software in India and the WordPress-specific plugin directories market in India, and whether the opposite party was dominant therein.

Analysis: The Commission identified two markets as relevant to the grievance. First, it treated content management software in India as the primary market because WordPress provides website-building and content-management functionality comparable to other CMS providers. Second, it treated the WordPress-specific plugin directories market in India as a distinct market because plugins are platform-specific and not readily interchangeable across CMS platforms, while centralized directories offer search, ratings, reviews, and categorisation that direct download sources do not fully replicate. On the available material, the opposite party was found to hold a dominant position in both markets, including by reason of its substantial market share and the scale of the plugin directory.

Conclusion: The relevant markets were identified as the CMS market in India and the WordPress-specific plugin directories market in India, and the opposite party was found to be dominant in those markets.

Issue (ii): Whether the delisting and banning of the informant's plugins amounted to abuse of dominant position by way of denial of market access, unfair or discriminatory conduct, or self-preferencing.

Analysis: The Commission accepted that the plugin directory operated under detailed guidelines applicable to all developers, and that violation of those guidelines could justify removal or banning. It recorded that the informant had repeatedly violated the guidelines despite warnings, and that the resulting action was taken for persistent misconduct rather than for an anticompetitive purpose. The guidelines were found to be directed toward maintaining quality and protecting users and developers, and no discriminatory application was established. The self-preferencing allegation also failed because the informant's plugin and the opposite party's Jetpack plugin were found to differ substantially in scope and function, so no direct competitive basis was shown.

Conclusion: The Commission held that the impugned conduct did not constitute abuse of dominant position, denial of market access, discriminatory treatment, or self-preferencing.

Issue (iii): Whether the information disclosed a prima facie contravention warranting action under Section 26(2) and interim relief under Section 33, and whether confidentiality deserved to be granted over specified material.

Analysis: As no prima facie case of contravention under Section 4 was made out, the information was liable to be closed under Section 26(2), and no basis remained for interim relief under Section 33. On confidentiality, the Commission accepted the request in respect of specified documents and data, subject to the statutory framework and for the stated period.

Conclusion: No prima facie contravention was made out, the request for interim relief failed, and confidentiality was granted for the specified material.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were closed on the finding that the impugned conduct did not disclose an abuse of dominance, while the ancillary confidentiality request was allowed in part for the protected material.

Ratio Decidendi: Where platform-specific rules are applied uniformly and the impugned action is justified by persistent non-compliance with those rules, removal or banning of a developer's listing does not by itself establish abuse of dominant position absent discrimination, denial of market access, or self-preferencing.

---