TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of vertical search services like YouTube, Google News, Google Maps etc. and in order to promote its vertical search services, it mixes many of vertical results into organic search results. The effect of such manipulation of results was that Google's vertical search partners will appear predominantly when an internet user searches for some information, irrespective of whether the search results are most popular or relevant. 2. The Commission, on perusal of the material available on record and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the informant, opined that their existed a prima facie case to direct the Director General (DG) to cause an investigation to be made into the matter. Accordingly, the Commission vide its order dated 03.04.2012 directed the DG to investigate the matter and to submit its report. 3. Subsequently, another information viz. Case No. 30 of 2012 was filed by Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) against Google, wherein it was also alleged that Google was abusing its dominant position by practices like search bias, search manipulation, denial of access and creation of entry barriers for competing search engines etc. 4. The Commission in this cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India (General) regulations, 2009: Subject: Show cause notice under section 43 of the Competition Act, 2002 read with regulation 48 of the Competition Commission of India (General) regulations, 2009 in the case of M/s Matrimony com private limited against Google Indian Private Limited (Case Nos. 07 & 30 of 2012) 1. Whereas the Competition Commission of India (the Commission) vide its order dated 03.04.2012 was of the opinion that there existed a prima facie case under section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') and referred the matter to the Director General (DG) for investigation. 2. Whereas pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the DG issued following notices to you to furnish certain information/documents within the stipulated time therein from the receipts of the said notice either by appearing in person or through an authorized representative: (i) Notice dated 12.02.2013  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and frequent engagement with the DG, and has dedicated significant time and resource in assisting the DG with the investigations. It was highlighted that from the time of commencement of Consim and CUTS investigations, Google has rendered complete cooperation and compliance, by providing extensive information, in the form of written responses to numerous sets of questions, detailed voluntary submissions and several in-person meetings. It was also sought to be suggested that the scope of both investigations is extremely broad, reaching into almost every commercial activity of Google, globally. Further, the issues under consideration have grown in scale and complexity, rather than becoming more focused over the course of the investigations. In both investigations, it was argued that there have been no set parameters for the time periods to provide information under consideration. Neither CUTS information nor Consim information clearly outlines any period of contravention. As a result, information, on occasions, was required to be provided for lengthy periods ranging up to five years. 13. It was argued that given the broad contours of the investigations, which have expanded over t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d scale of the information in question. It was averred that though Google regrets any inconvenience that this may have caused, Google's aim was always to provide a full and complete response in a form that would be useful to the DG's investigation. It was sought to be suggested that such behavior is not typical of a party that is attempting to either withhold information, or provide only part of the information in disregard of the requests made. 18. Lastly, it was submitted that throughout the investigation, Google has displayed good faith and a complete willingness to cooperate with the DG and the Commission. Google has expended considerable effort in providing information that is relevant to the investigation, whether specifically requested or voluntarily offered. Multiple written submissions have been made, including extensive responses to requests from the DG and voluntary submissions and numerous in-person meetings have been held, often at Google's request in order to facilitate the DG's better understanding of its business. Most importantly, the following points were highlighted : (i) First, section 43 of the Act allows the Commission the discretion to find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of the investigations, rather than becoming focused, and which touch on almost every aspect of Google's business in India and abroad. The challenges raised by the complexity and broad scope of the investigations have been compounded by the three changes in the officers responsible for the case at the DG since the original orders of the Commission. It would be wrong, and manifestly unfair, to attribute the general length of time taken in these investigations to-date, to any apparent delays in Google's provision of information. Google's intention to offer complete cooperation to the DG at all times is reflected in the fact that Google has submitted close to ten thousand pages of information in response to almost 20 separate notices, comprising over 200 distinct questions/requests. As on the date of this submission, Google is continuing to engage with the DG and is providing additional information and documents as are being requested by the DG from time-to-time. 19. In light of the above, it was prayed to the Commissions that the legal standards provided under section 43 of the Act have not been met and a penalty is not merited. 20. The Commission has very carefully ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... August 2010 to December 2010 and August 2011 to December 2011, which substantially reduced the overall volume of information to be submitted. In view of the further request by the opposite parties seeking 4 weeks of additional time, vide notice dated 26.09.2013 the DG granted additional time upto 04.10.2013. As Google vide letter dated 04.10.2013 furnished only a list of changes made to the search algorithm and not the details of changes, the DG vide its letter dated 11.10.2013 intimated the opposite parties that the Office of the DG required much more than mere the title of the changes made in the algorithm i.e. reasons and supporting internal documents to facilitate investigation to reach a logical conclusion. It was specifically mentioned that in view of the observations in the said letter their reply was not considered as complete and full. It may be noted that till 15.1.2014 i.e. when the DG reported the matter to the Commission, the opposite parties did not supply the said information. Non-submission of copies of Agreements 24. In order to examine the issue related to exclusivity, the Office of the DG vide Question No. 1 of notice dated 13.11.2013 directed Google to furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2013 to furnish the certified copies of internal documents containing the decision for the internal review of tech support Adword accounts and enforcement action thereon by 10.12.2013. The opposite parties vide letter dated 11.12.2013 submitted certain information to the Office of the DG but did not furnish internal documents as sought, within the given timeframe. Nor did they seek any extension of time for compliance. Non-furnishing of informations following-on from the depositions within the given timeframe 27. Lastly, it may be observed that during 16-18 December, 2013, while recording statements of the representatives of Google, the opposite parties told the DG that they would revert on certain issues but failed to do so. Accordingly, they were, vide notice dated 21.12.2013 of the DG (sent through e-mail), directed to furnish the reply to the queries raised during recording of statement by 10.01.2014. However, the opposite parties neither furnished the information/documents within the given timeframe nor sent any communication in this regard. 28. In view of the sequence of events adumbrated above, it is evident that the opposite parties have failed to comply with the direc....