Flipkart, Facebook, Nokia’s maps section, Makemytrip.com and various other firms have corroborated charges that the US net giant abused its dominant market position, in their own reply to queries raised by the Competition Commission of India.
Where an antitrust body is officially increasing such charges against Google this indicates the very first instance internationally. The first charges were filed by Bharat Matrimony as well as an Jaipur-based not for profit, Consumer Unity and Trust Society. Microsoft has made an extensive entry on the alleged misuse of power of Google, as stated by the report. Others who reacted to the CCI contain MapmyIndia.com, Hungama Digital and GroupM.

Google should file its reply to the findings by September 10, as well as a week after present before the seven-member commission.

It can request the organization to make changes in the way in the event the commission finds Google guilty. CCI may additionally levy a fine up to 10% of the income of Google. Top Google executives could be also pursued against by the CCI.

“We are now reviewing this report from the CCI’s continuing investigation,” a Google spokesman said in an e-mail to ET. “We continue to work closely with the CCI and stay assured that we comply completely with India’s competition laws.

The report of the commission finds Google liable on two counts. Likewise, Google Hotels gets preference over other travel portal sites which will have higher traffic and for that reason mathematically more suitable as first results of a search.

The next is that the sponsored links are dependent only on the quantity of marketing supersede the link of the real logos being searched, and occasionally paid to Google. Flipkart, in its observation, said it’s found search results to truly have a direct correlation together with the sum of money Google advertisements is spent on by the ecommerce portal site. A Flipkart spokesman refused comment on the reply of the company’s.

Remarkable changes in results
The report finds the visibility of the search result depends on a quality score. The score is figured ambiguously. It emphasizes that its search algorithms are modified by Google without in forming changes results and users in remarkable changes. It mentions the case of a UK site, Ciao!, which slipped from one of the very best results to the 2nd page of search results immediately.

As an outcome of this substan tial company was lost by the organisation.

A Facebook answer mentioned in the record elaborates search ing within the social media site differs from web searches.

Thus, the DG reasons that Google’s practices were counter productive to initiation, as prices for listed sites raise.

Google’s using foreign arbitration clauses in the event of disputes is also considered abuse of authority, as stated by the report.

Google has the choice to seek additional time to react to the CCI report. For delaying advice the commission had sought it was fined Rs 1. Before the commission law firms AZB & Partners and Economical Law Practice will represents Google, while both informants are represented APJ and by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas -SLG Law Offices.

A similar strategy was embraced by Google together with the European Commission, but the EC after a number of entries has raised a statement of objection to last week, which Google reacted.

The commission will deliberate on the issue before pronounc ing a verdict in favour or against Google. If the EU is beaten by the Indian body to it, experts said the one in Europe here could change.