1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Abuse of dominance in app distribution: mandatory billing and anti steering rules found anticompetitive, prompting remedial measures.</h1> The Commission found that conditioning Play Store access on mandatory use of the Google Play Billing System and anti steering restraints imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions on app developers, denied market access to payment aggregators and rival payment processors, distorted incentives for technical development in in app payment processing, and amounted to leveraging dominance; it identified discriminatory treatment of Google's own apps and differing integration methods for UPI apps as additional anticompetitive conduct, and prescribed measures to permit third party billing, prohibit anti steering, ensure non discrimination, and require transparent data and fee policies.