Welcome to the 24th edition of Keeping Up With Competition. August 2025 was an active month at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), with decisions spanning digital markets, agriculture, real estate, and industrial software. From Google’s ad policies to RCFL’s fertilizer sales practices, the CCI’s orders show how antitrust scrutiny continues to cut across both traditional and digital sectors.
Together, these decisions highlight the evolving priorities of Indian competition law - from dismissing repetitive cases to extending scrutiny across both public and private enterprises:
Section 26(2A) in practice: The CCI appears increasingly inclined to invoke Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act), which allows the dismissal of complaints that are repetitive, previously adjudicated, or based on settled issues.
Public sector scrutiny: In a significant move, the CCI reiterated that public sector undertakings, such as Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (RCFL), are not immune from antitrust scrutiny when they engage in commercial activity.
Jurisdictional boundaries clarified: Several orders this month reflected the CCI’s firm stance on not entertaining matters that lie outside its jurisdiction. The CCI emphasized that commercial disputes, breaches of contract, or regulatory compliance issues cannot be recast as competition law violations unless there is clear evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
Digital markets consolidation: In the digital economy, the CCI is showing a preference for consolidating overlapping complaints, particularly in complex areas like adtech and platform services, rather than launching multiple fragmented inquiries.
Google: repeat challenge to search ad policies dismissed (order available here)
In a significant order, the CCI dismissed a complaint against Google by invoking Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, which allows the CCI to close cases at the threshold where the issues have already been addressed in earlier proceedings.
Allegations: The case, filed by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF), alleged abuse of dominance in the online search advertising market through four practices:
Prohibiting third-party technical support providers from advertising;
Restricting “Call Ads” to mobile devices;
Using opaque ad ranking algorithms; and
Allowing bidding on advertisers’ registered trademarks as keywords.
Assessment: The CCI observed that substantially the same facts and issues had already been decided by the CCI in its previous orders in Matrimony and Vishal Gupta. In those cases, the CCI had found that:
Google's policies were based on defined criteria to ensure consumer safety and were non-discriminatory.
Google provides sufficient data to advertisers regarding the performance of their ads.
Google’s keyword bidding policy was pro-competitive as it increased the relevance of ads and enhanced user choice.
Applying Section 26(2A), the CCI declined to re-litigate settled issues, noting that principles of res judicata promote fairness, consistency, and efficiency.
In a related development, the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a writ petition concerning Asian Paints, clarified the scope of Section 26(2A). It held that the provision does not create a jurisdictional bar but is an enabling tool: the CCI may still examine fresh complaints if they rest on distinct facts or new evidence. The decision to apply Section 26(2A) remains a matter of CCI discretion.
CCI orders investigation into RCFL for alleged tying of Urea (order available here)
The CCI has ordered an investigation into RCFL, a government-owned navratna company, for allegedly tying the sale of other agricultural products with subsidised urea in Maharashtra. The informant claimed that farmers and dealers were compelled to buy non-subsidised goods bundled with urea, thereby exploiting the state-backed subsidy scheme. Evidence included press reports, official warnings, and affidavits from farmers and dealers.
Before addressing the allegations, the CCI confirmed that RCFL qualifies as an “enterprise” under the Competition Act. Relying on guidance from the Supreme Court (in Coal India Limited) and the Delhi High Court (in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India), the CCI deemed RCFL’s manufacturing and sales activities commercial and were subject to competition law, unlike sovereign functions which are exempt.
The relevant market was defined as the sale and supply of urea in Maharashtra, where RCFL has maintained a stable 40%+ market share for three years in a highly concentrated market with high farmer dependence. On this basis, the CCI formed a prima facie view that RCFL is dominant.
Alleged abuses included tie-in arrangements, unfair conditions, supplementary obligations, and leveraging dominance to promote other products (Sections 3 and 4). The CCI rejected the denial of market access claim, observing that it concerned secondary products rather than the urea market itself. This reflects a pattern of the CCI treating denial of access claims narrowly, limiting them to the dominant market itself rather than to related markets.
The matter has been referred to the Director General for investigation.
Real estate: Emaar holds no dominance in Gurugram villa development (order available here)
A complaint alleged that Emaar India Limited misled villa buyers by later permitting builder-floor developments within the same project. The CCI defined the market as the “development and sale of villas in Gurugram,” noting that villas differ from apartments in consumer preferences and price levels.
Reviewing licensing data, the CCI observed the presence of major developers including DLF, Godrej, and Tata Housing in the relevant market. Emaar did not hold a dominant position, and without dominance, the abuse claims could not be sustained. Allegations of vertical restraints were also unsupported. The matter was accordingly closed.
Inter-se vendor disputes: outside the scope of the Competition Act (order available here)
A retired army officer alleged that a rival juice vendor at Command Hospital, Kolkata, engaged in unfair competition, including below-cost pricing and operating without licenses.
The CCI emphasised that the Competition Act requires either an anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominance. Neither was present. Pricing by a small vendor did not raise competition concerns, while licensing and hygiene issues fall within the jurisdiction of other authorities. The complaint was dismissed.
Industrial software: AVEVA not dominant (order available here)
A complaint against AVEVA Group alleged tying of its MES, SCADA, and Historian software into bundled subscriptions. While these products are functionally non-substitutable, the CCI defined the relevant market as “market for MES, SCADA and Historian industrial automation software in India” treating them as part of a broader, interconnected ecosystem. This shows the CCI is increasingly looking at how product suites shape competition, not just whether they are interchangeable.
The CCI observed that the market remained competitive, with major players such as Siemens, Rockwell, SAP, Honeywell, and Emerson. AVEVA was not found to be dominant, and the tying allegations could not be upheld.
Adtech: new complaint against Google clubbed (order available here)
ADIF also filed a complaint concerning Google’s conduct in online display advertising. Allegations included tying its ad server with its ad exchange, restricting YouTube inventory to its own DSP, and self-preferencing through allocation practices.
The CCI noted that these issues overlapped with those already under investigation in the 'Publishers Case’ (Case Nos. 41 of 2021, 10 of 2022, 36 of 2022, and 34 of 2024). Exercising its powers under Section 26(1), the CCI consolidated ADIF’s complaint with the ongoing matter to ensure a comprehensive investigation. The move reflects the CCI’s preference for consolidating overlapping complaints into a single, comprehensive inquiry.