CCI, January 05, 2026 : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a complaint alleging large-scale anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance in India’s digital ecosystem by several individuals and global technology companies, including Sundar Pichai, Apple LLC, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., and Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd..
In an order dated 5 January 2026, the Commission held that no prima facie case was made out under the Competition Act, 2002 to warrant an investigation. The order was passed by a coram led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, along with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag, closing the proceedings at the threshold stage under Section 26(2) of the Act. 1768323595_order1767619439-6453…
The case arose from an information filed by entrepreneur Preeti Kodwani, who alleged that dominant players operating in online search, digital advertising, e-commerce, and digital intermediation markets, along with several named individuals, were manipulating digital identifiers, suppressing online visibility, and diverting customer traffic and paid advertising leads to competitors. According to the informant, this conduct resulted in denial of market access, unfair discrimination, market allocation, and diversion of business opportunities, causing serious commercial harm and loss of revenue.
The complaint named 23 opposite parties and sought wide-ranging interim reliefs, including directions to restrain the alleged diversion of digital traffic, restore fair access to online marketing and advertising tools, and prevent what was described as malicious interference with the informant’s business relationships. It was further alleged that the cumulative conduct of the opposite parties distorted competition in India’s digital markets and caused an appreciable adverse effect on competition.
After examining the material placed on record, the CCI found that the allegations were vague, general, and unsupported by cogent evidence. The Commission noted that the information failed to clearly attribute any specific role or conduct to the numerous opposite parties arrayed in the case. It also observed that the screenshots and documents relied upon by the informant were largely illegible and incapable of meaningful scrutiny or verification.
The Commission held that the informant had not demonstrated any nexus between the alleged acts and an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. It reiterated that assertions of harm to an individual business, without establishing anti-competitive conduct that affects the competitive process, do not meet the statutory threshold for directing an investigation. In the absence of credible pleadings or material indicating collusion, abuse of dominance, or exclusionary conduct, the CCI found no basis to proceed further.
Recording its conclusion, the Commission stated that “upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no prima facie contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter.” Consequently, the request for interim relief under Section 33 of the Act was also rejected, and the matter was closed with no further action.
Cause Title: Preeti Kodwani vs Sundar Pichai & Ors
Case Number: Case No. 36 of 2025
Coram: Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, Deepak Anurag
