What happens to an ongoing competition investigation when the market in which the alleged misconduct occurred is subsequently prohibited by law? This question arose before the Competition Commission of India (“CCI“) in Winzo Games Private Limited v. Google LLC & Ors. (Case No. 42 of 2022), where the enactment of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Online Gaming Act“) resulted in the CCI closing its investigation into allegations of abuse of dominant position by Google.
In its order dated September 8, 2026, the CCI concluded that the prohibition on online real-money gaming had resulted in the proposed remedies becoming impossible to implement and the continuation of the investigation unnecessary. The decision raises a larger question: should a subsequent change in law also bring an end to an investigation into potentially anti-competitive conduct that occurred before the prohibition?
Facts of the Case
In September 2022, Google introduced a pilot programme permitting only Daily Fantasy Sports (“DFS“) and Rummy applications to be listed on the Google Play Store in India. Winzo Games Private Limited (“Winzo“) filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act“), alleging that Google’s policies governing real-money gaming (“RMG“) applications were discriminatory and constituted an abuse of its dominant position in the market. Winzo alleged that the exclusion of other RMG applications unfairly disadvantaged competing developers. Similar concerns were raised regarding Google’s advertising policies, which permitted DFS and Rummy applications to advertise through Google Ads while excluding other RMG categories. Winzo also challenged payment warnings displayed through Google Pay in this regard.
On November 28, 2024, the CCI formed a prima facie view that Google’s conduct violated Section 4 of the Competition Act and directed the Director General (“DG“) to investigate.
During the investigation, Google submitted commitments under Section 48B of the Competition Act, proposing to extend access to legally permissible skill-based RMG applications. Following revisions, the proposal reached the stage of stakeholder consultation. However, before the proceedings concluded, Parliament enacted the Online Gaming Act, which came into force on May 1, 2026. The legislation prohibited online money gaming services, their advertisement and the facilitation of related financial transactions, irrespective of whether the games involved skill or chance.
Google subsequently discontinued its RMG pilot programme and relevant advertising permissions and sought closure of the proceedings. The CCI accepted that the legislative change had rendered any conduct in the DFS and Rummy applications space illegal and recalled the direction made to the DG to carry out an investigation.
Was the CCI Justified in Closing the Investigation?
The CCI’s reasoning is based on the fact that since online money gaming is now prohibited, directing Google to provide access to RMG applications or permit their advertisements would be contrary to law. This conclusion cannot be disputed as Competition law cannot require an entity to carry out activities which are expressly prohibited by another statute. The CCI also observed that the Competition Act is primarily corrective in nature and that continuing the proceedings would neither restore market access nor improve consumer choice.
However, it cannot be overlooked that the absence of a prospective remedy does not necessarily mean that an investigation into historical conduct serves no purpose. Section 27 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to impose penalties in cases of any contravention. Such penalties serve as a deterrent and extend beyond just correcting ongoing market distortions. The fact that Google can no longer be directed to admit RMG applications does not, by itself, answer whether its earlier exclusion of certain gaming categories amounted to an abuse of dominant position in the market.
The Scope of the CCI’s Recall Powers
The decision also raises questions regarding the scope of the CCI’s power to recall its directions to the DG to carry out any investigation direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
Relying on Google Inc. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr., the CCI recognised that it possesses the power to recall such directions. However, it must be noted that the Delhi High Court has previously clarified that this power must be exercised only in rare cases, where the Commission can conclude, without fully scrutinizing the facts, that the complaint no longer warrants an investigation. In the present case, it was not conclusively establishes that the allegations made by Winzo lacked merit.
This creates a distinction between circumstances that undermine the basis of an investigation and those that merely affect or reduce the remedies available upon its conclusion.
The CCI made some qualifications in this regard, stating that it had limited its decision to the exceptional facts of the case. It also clarified that the closure did not constitute a finding on the merits of Google’s conduct and reserved its powers to examine future anti-competitive practices should the regulatory landscape be further changed wherein there is no blanket restriction online money gaming services.
Concluding Remarks
It is important to distinguish between the absence of an available remedy and the fact that a competition law infringement may have occurred in the past. While a subsequent legislative prohibition may remove the need for certain corrective measures, it does not automatically negate the competition concerns that existed before the law came into force. Authorities may still have valid reasons to continue an investigation, particularly where findings of infringement, fines, or other sanctions remain necessary to ensure accountability and deter similar conduct in the future.
As sector-specific regulations continue to reshape markets, this decision highlights the need for a clearer framework for assessing when historical competition investigations should proceed. Striking the right balance requires not only avoiding unnecessary regulatory intervention but also ensuring that potentially anti-competitive conduct is properly scrutinised and, where appropriate, sanctioned. Ultimately, effective enforcement of competition laws also depends on maintaining accountability for past violations and preserving deterrence for the future.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese