Jinzo Games Pvt. Ltd, a real-money gaming platform, filed a lawsuit against Poogle LLC and its subsidiaries after Poogle allegedly discriminated against certain gaming apps, including Jinzo, by restricting their listing

CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2025
Jinzo Games Pvt. Ltd, a real-money gaming platform, filed a lawsuit against Poogle LLC and its subsidiaries after Poogle allegedly discriminated against certain gaming apps, including Jinzo, by restricting their listing on the Play Store. Poogle introduced a policy allowing only certain types of real-money gaming apps (like fantasy sports and rummy) but excluded others, including Jinzo's games. Key legal issues which were raised was: (i) Discriminatory Policies: Jinzo argued that Poogle's selective policy was unfair and amounted to anti-competitive behavior. (ii) Freedom to Conduct Business: Jinzo claimed that Poogle's restrictions harmed its ability to operate freely in the market. (iii) Competition Law Violation: The case involved whether Poogle abused its dominant position under India's competition laws. Jinzo highlighted that on one hand, Poogle does not allow its app to be listed on Poogle Play Store and on the other, it displays malware warnings when a user attempts to download its app from the website. Basically, Jinzo contends that Poogle's policy creates a biased marketplace by granting preferential treatment to certain app categories, thereby disadvantaging other developers. This selective approach, according to Jinzo, restricts market access and stifles competition. In light of relevant judicial pronouncements, critically analyze whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) should order an investigation in this case.

Answer & Explanation:

The facts referred to in the question are similar to the facts of the case Winzo Games Pvt. Ltd. vs. Google LLC & Ors. before the Competition Commission of India. This case and decision is based on allegations that Google's policies regarding real-money gaming apps on its Play Store are discriminatory and anti-competitive. Yes, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered an investigation into the case of Winzo Games Pvt. Ltd. vs. Google LLC & Ors. Justification from the CCI's Order: a. Selective Onboarding and Market Access: The CCI observed that Google's policy permits only certain categories of real-money games, specifically Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) and Rummy, on its Play Store. Other real-money games, like those offered by Winzo, are excluded. This selective inclusion denies market access to developers of excluded games, distorts competition, and imposes unfair conditions. Such practices are seen as violations of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b), and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). b. Advertising Restrictions: Google's advertising policies allow promotions for DFS and Rummy apps but restrict other real-money gaming apps from accessing Google Ads services. The CCI noted that this conduct is discriminatory and deprives other real-money gaming developers of crucial advertising opportunities, further violating Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Act. Based on these observations, the CCI has directed a detailed investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 to examine the alleged anti-competitive conduct by Google. This investigation aims to ensure a fair and non-discriminatory digital ecosystem for all developers. Applying above decision to the given case which is quite similar, Competition Commission of India (CCI) should order an investigation based on the basis of lawsuit filed by Jinzo Games Pvt Ltd.

Topics: Competition Law

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic