1

O.A.No.489 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.129 of 2023

O.A.No.495 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.130 of 2023

O.A.No.494 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.131 of 2023

O.A.No.502 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.132 of 2023

O.A.No.501 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.)No.133 of 2023

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

These applications have been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs seeking

injunction restraining the respondents from removing/delisting the mobile

applications (mobile apps) owned and operated by the applicant in Google

Play Store for their refusal or failure to accept or subscribe to the Google

payments in terms of Service-Seller (IN) posted on 02.06.2022, Payment

Policies, Policies relating to service fees, terms etc.

2. According to the applicants/plaintiffs, they are engaged in online

business. The applicants' apps are listed in the Google Play Store app pre-

loaded in mobile phone operating system android owned and operated by

the respondents. The applicants entered into a Developer Distribution

Agreement with 3^rd respondent for listing of applicant's App in Google

Play store.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

3. The 7^th respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of

India and it operates as an online ''Payment Aggregator” facilitates

e-commerce sites and merchants to accept various payment instruments

from customers for completion of payment obligations without a need for

merchants to create a separate payment integration system of their own.

4. According to the applicants, around the year 2020, the respondents

herein made the use of Google Play Billing System “GPBS” mandatory and

exclusive for processing payments for downloading paid Apps, In-App

Purchases.

5. It is also asserted by the applicants that on the basis of subsequent

Investigation Report, the Competition Commission of India by order dated

25.10.2022 directed the respondents not to restrict app developers from

using any third party billing/payment processing services, either for in-app

purchases or for purchasing apps. The respondents were also directed not to

discriminate or otherwise take any adverse measures against such apps

using third party billing/payment process service in any manner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

6. It was also asserted by the applicants that the respondents instead

of complying with the orders passed by the Competition Commission of

India in it's letter and spirit, in order to circumvent the same, permitted the

app developers in India to use “Alternative Billing System/User Choice

Billing” along side and in addition to the GPBS. In effect, integrating of

“GPBS” by app developers was made mandatory.

7. The applicants also asserted in the affidavit that as per the payment

policy of the respondents they proposed to charge service fee at the rate of

15% for the first $1M (USD) revenue earned by the app developer every

year. For the revenue earned in excess of $1M(USD), the service fee

proposed by the respondents is at 30%. It is also stated that in cases where

app developers offer alternative billing system in addition to Google Play

Billing System for transaction in India, the service fee for such transaction

using the Alternative Billing System is equal to the transaction via Google

Play's Billing System reduced by 4%. In other words, even if customers

make payment for app purchase or In-app purchase by utilizing Alternative

Billing System, the respondents proposed to charge 11% or 26% as service

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

charge, depending on revenue generated. It is stated by the applicants that

when customers make payment by using Alternative Billing System levy of

service fee by the respondents at the rate of 11% or 26% depending on the

size of revenue generated by app developers in a year, without doing any

service with regard to the payment, is on the face of it, unconscionable.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants by ta