PaymentsJournal
No Result
View All Result
SIGN UP
  • Commercial
  • Credit
  • Debit
  • Digital Assets & Crypto
  • Digital Banking
  • Emerging Payments
  • Fraud & Security
  • Merchant
  • Prepaid
PaymentsJournal
  • Commercial
  • Credit
  • Debit
  • Digital Assets & Crypto
  • Digital Banking
  • Emerging Payments
  • Fraud & Security
  • Merchant
  • Prepaid
No Result
View All Result
PaymentsJournal
No Result
View All Result

CCI Report Shows Discriminatory Business Practices by Google

By Jordan Hirschfield
April 4, 2022
in Analysts Coverage, Compliance and Regulation, Digital Assets & Crypto
0
0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
CCI Report Shows Discriminatory Business Practices by Google

CCI Report Shows Discriminatory Business Practices by Google

Billing options, or the ways in which a business chooses to bill its customers, can often be a source of competitive discrimination. Businesses may offer different billing options to different groups of customers, based on factors such as creditworthiness or contract length. This can lead to different customers paying different prices for the same product or service. billing options can also be used to discourage competition. For example, a business might only offer billing options that are unfavorable to potential new competitors. This can make it more difficult for new businesses to enter the market and compete with established firms. Thus, billing options can have a significant impact on competition and can be used as a tool to discriminate against certain types of businesses. Where does Google fit in?

A long investigation of Google business practices surrounding billing options for app developers in India has resulted in findings that Google presented anti-competitive discrimination. Business Standard reports on the news today:

The findings come after a months-long investigation triggered by protests from developers, who’ve complained the US internet giant charges an unfairly high fee in return for using Android app stores and its proprietary payments service.

Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent, and Apple Inc. have come under pressure from regulators around the world who accuse the twin mobile giants of forcing developers to use their payment systems, then taking an outsized cut of revenue. In South Korea, Google was forced to provide an alternative billing system after regulatory action. In that market, Google said it was reducing app makers’ fees by 4%.

The report from the Competition Committee of India specifically calls out Google Pay’s stifling of options by restricting access to the Indian UPI system.

“Google is imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in violation of regulations,” the Indian agency said in its preliminary report dated March 14. Google’s conduct is also resulting in denial of market access to competing UPI apps since the market for UPI enabled digital payment apps is multi-sided, and the network effects will lead to a situation where Google Pay’s competitors will be completely excluded from the market in the long run,” it said, referring to the Unified Payments Interface or state-backed payments infrastructure.

In response, Google announced changes last month to allow some apps to provide direct billing and says it will continue to work with Indian regulators to provider service in the market without restricting competition.

Overview by Jordan Hirschfield, Director of Research at Mercator Advisory Group

0
SHARES
0
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Tags: BillingCompliance and RegulationFeesGoogleIndiaMobile AppRegulationRegulations

    Get the Latest News and Insights Delivered Daily

    Subscribe to the PaymentsJournal Newsletter for exclusive insight and data from Javelin Strategy & Research analysts and industry professionals.

    Must Reads

    payments hub

    All in One: How a Payments Hub Eliminates the Pain Points

    June 5, 2025
    Vertical SaaS

    From Underdogs to Industry Leaders: How Vertical SaaS Powers Mid-Sized Firms

    June 4, 2025
    credit card surcharging

    A Perfectly Understandable Bad Idea: Why Merchants Should Reconsider Surcharging

    June 3, 2025
    synapse baas

    The Numbers Game: Building the Relationship Between Banks and Accountants

    June 2, 2025
    commercial payments

    A Definitional Discussion: Exploring the Shape and Trajectory of the U.S. Commercial Payments Ecosystem

    May 30, 2025
    Cross-Border Payments

    Fear and Friction in Cross-Border Payments: The Alternative to Correspondent Banking

    May 29, 2025
    south korea cbdc

    The Hidden Threats in Online Marketplaces

    May 28, 2025
    security centers

    Telling the Security Story: How FIs Can Leverage Security Centers to Fight Fraud

    May 27, 2025

    Linkedin-in X-twitter
    • Commercial
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Digital Banking
    • Commercial
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Digital Banking
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    • About Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Sign Up for Our Newsletter
    • About Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Sign Up for Our Newsletter

    ©2024 PaymentsJournal.com |  Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

    • Commercial Payments
    • Credit
    • Debit
    • Digital Assets & Crypto
    • Emerging Payments
    • Fraud & Security
    • Merchant
    • Prepaid
    No Result
    View All Result