https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761951 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. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:59:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761951 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. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761951