Google Play proposes real money games in India, with suggested changes to ads policy
Besides, the technology major has suggested changes to Google Ads Policy and permits games of skill to be advertised in India, subject to certain conditions.
In November 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had ordered an investigation against Google on a complaint filed by Winzo Games Pvt Ltd. Against this backdrop, Google has submitted a commitment proposal to the regulator.
"The Play Commitment Proposal, along with the Ads Commitment Proposal, addresses the Hon'ble Commission's concerns by ensuring inclusive access to Google Play and Google Ads for all compliant RMGs, eliminating any alleged competitive disadvantages, and standardising policies to prevent any adverse effects on competition," Google said in the proposal.
RMGs refer to Real Money Games.
In its order, CCI had mentioned the alleged exclusion of certain RMG apps from Google Play could result in a denial of market access. and also that the selective onboarding of DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) and Rummy apps allegedly distorts the competitive landscape.
It was also flagged that the prolonged duration of the pilot program, which includes only DFS and Rummy apps, is said to perpetuate advantages for these apps, creating barriers for new entrants.
"Google will replace the current pilot program by allowing the distribution of all RMGs self-declared by developers as permissible online real money games as per applicable laws/jurisprudence, on Google Play in India," the company said.
Also, the company is finalising its approach for an appropriate business model which considers developer commercial models in the RMG industry.
With respect to its Ads Policy, Google said it will allow games of skill to be advertised in India where the advertiser provides proof that it is in good standing with a recognised third party and certain other conditions.
Besides, it needs to be ensured that the "recognised third party has provided a third party certification that the game it intends to advertise is a permissible game of skill, and the advertiser otherwise complies with the Google Ads Policies," the proposal said.
Among other aspects, Google clarified that payment warnings are developer agnostic, applied in a uniform and transparent manner and are objectively necessary for user safety, as mandated by several directives of the Reserve Bank of India and the National Payments Corporation of India.
"They are not specific to any consumer, individual merchant, or a particular product 'class' (e.g. RMG vs non-RMG apps), nor do they differentiate between developers distributed on Google Play (by way of a pilot program or otherwise) or outside of Google Play. They are applied in a uniform and transparent manner and may be triggered by objective parameters that apply to all transactions alike," it noted.
The watchdog has sought public comments on the commitment proposal till August 20.
In a statement on Friday, Winzo said Google has now sought to resolve the matter by offering its third commitment.
"Any commitments must be robust and genuinely eliminate the discriminatory practices identified.
"Winzo is carefully reviewing the details of Google's new proposal and will continue to participate actively in the CCI's consultation process. Google's vague reference to 'developing' a commercial model for Real Money Gaming, without any clear framework, timeline, or objective criteria, is what we would watch out for," it added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC stays Madras HC order in Testbook suit against Google Play Store billing
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court 's order that allowed continuation of the proceedings on the Testbook Edu Solutions ' petition against Google India Digital Services ' updated payment policies relating to its proprietary Google Play Store A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stayed the HC's June 11 order that dismissed Google 's petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a court to reject a plaint at the initial HC had dismissed Google's contention that Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The HC had held that Testbook's suit contained contractual issues that fell within its jurisdiction and could not be dismissed on the which operates over 700 mobile applications for government exam preparation, had challenged the search engine giant's Google Play Billing System and User Choice Billing, which mandate service fees ranging from 15% to 30% from application developers. Google's policies amounted to a unilateral novation of its agreement with application developers, and they were contrary to public policy and imposed undue economic duress on the developers, Testbook told the SC that the Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, which expressly ousts civil jurisdiction in respect of matters within the domain of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Further, the allegations concerning the Payment and Settlement Systems Act are solely within the purview of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as the sectoral regulator, it counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Google, said that the single judge of the HC held that the plaint filed by Testbook is maintainable despite the Division Bench of the same HC conclusively ruling that identical claims by other similarly placed parties were barred under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.'The impugned judgment is therefore an outlier decision, rendered contrary to binding precedent, which should be corrected by the SC. It also implicates important issues of principle, including the exclusive scope of the powers of two specialist regulators: the Competition Commission of India and the Reserve Bank of India, conferred by statute. Not only are these exclusive powers important as a matter of regulatory coherence and principle, they also exist to avoid fragmented or inconsistent outcomes and floods of individual suits concerning the same contract: one which the CCI is in fact already examining in a pending investigation,' Google stated in its objected to the maintainability of the connected suits under Order Vll Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, saying the Division Bench had upheld the rejection of the connected suits filed by similarly placed mobile app developers, explicitly holding that claims stemming from allegations of abuse of dominant market position fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the CCI and not that of the civil courts on account of Section 61 of the Competition Act.'The Testbook plaint is materially identical in its allegations, reliefs, and cause of action to these previously rejected connected suits, particularly the plaint filed by another app developer, Nasadiya Technologies,' the tech giant stated.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Sundar Pichai tells Google employees to rely more on AI than colleagues to drive productivity
Google is asking its employees to rely on AI more often — not just to build new things, but to help them work faster and smarter. Top bosses are making it clear: the new way of working is to do more with less, and AI is a big part of that. During a company-wide meeting last week, Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, spoke about the rising expectations on teams. While building AI tools remains important, Google is also changing how teams should work — with fewer people, quicker processes, and more help from to a report by CNBC, Pichai told employees, 'Anytime you go through a period of extraordinary investment, you respond by adding a lot of headcount, right? But in this AI moment, I think we have to accomplish more by taking advantage of this transition to drive higher productivity.' This reflects what many tech companies are doing today — putting a lot of money into AI, but also asking teams to handle more work with fewer staff. CNBC adds that Alphabet, Google's parent company, plans to spend $85 billion on infrastructure in 2025. That's more than the $75 billion it was planning earlier this point was also supported by Brian Saluzzo, who heads the engineering teams that manage Google's main tech systems. Saluzzo said there's a 'real urgency' to bring AI into more everyday work, especially for Google's software developers. That includes AI tools to help them code faster, and training programmes to help workers understand AI better. Google is also promoting its internal AI tools, such as Cider — an AI-based coding helper — which, according to Saluzzo, is already used weekly by half of the people who have access to it. He also mentioned 'AI Savvy Google', a website made for Google staff that shares toolkits, lessons and courses to help them learn AI. Google has also teamed up with DeepMind to build a training course called 'Building with Gemini', which will launch shift in mindset isn't just happening at Google. Other major tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Shopify are also expecting workers to use AI more often. The report also mentions that Microsoft's Julia Liuson recently told employees that 'using AI is no longer optional', while Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke said teams need to show that they can't do something with AI before they ask for more Google's total number of employees has slightly gone down from its highest point in 2023. It now has just over 187,000 full-time staff. Pichai admitted that the company's resources are tighter, saying, 'We are going to be going through a period of much higher investment, and I think we have to be frugal with our resources.'- Ends
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SC stays Textbook Edu's plea against Google in billing policy case
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had dismissed Google India's plea against Textbook Edu Solutions. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing Google's appeal against the Madras High Court order of June 11. The High Court had dismissed Google's request to reject a plea by Textbook Edu Solutions challenging Google's new user choice billing policy. The policy required all app developers to use its Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for all transactions, including paid app downloads and in-app purchases. The developers claimed they were charged a commission ranging between 13% and 15%. Although the High Court had dismissed 13 similar suits moved against Google in the past, it refused to reject Textbook Edu's plea, stating that it did not concern Google's superior bargaining position but rather the bilateral contracts between the parties. The High Court had also rejected Google's argument that the issue should be addressed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
