Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (5.50 seconds)
Whatsapp Llc vs Competition Commission Of India on 4 November, 2025 cites

Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Competition Commission Of India on 2 August, 2022

45. Appellant has placed reliance on Vinod Kumar Gupta v. Competition Commission of India, Competition Appeal No. (AT) 13 of 2017 (Vinod Kumar Gupta) in which this AT had dismissed allegations of abuse of Competition Appeal No. 1 & 2 of 2025 33 of 184 dominance by WhatsApp in relation to the 2016 Update at the prima facie stage itself and argues that CCI should have exercised judicial restraint in line with AT's own decision. We find that this judgement is of no help to the Appellants as the 2016 and 2021 policies are fundamentally different. The scope of data collection and sharing under the two policies is different, with the 2021 Policy being much more expansive. Moreover, CCI's order under Section 26(2) was preliminary, but the impugned order was a final order under Section 27 after detailed investigation
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Chartered ... vs Whatsapp Inc on 1 June, 2017

168. Appellants have also relied on the arguments of multihoming. Appellant claims that ability to multi-home means there exists no real dependence, and Competition Appeal No. 1 & 2 of 2025 103 of 184 consumers can have both WhatsApp and Telegram on their phone and switch between them, and in fact they often do. Appellant also relied on observations in Vinod Kumar Gupta v. WhatsApp, Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited v. ANI Technologies [Para 90 @pg. 47 of the Impugned Order]. CCI's contends that efficacy of multi-homing is greatly reduced by network effects, and fact that these messaging apps are not interoperable. Activity will therefore remain concentrated on app with bigger user base, even if there is multi-homing; consequently, dependence of consumers on that app doesn't really diminish. There is a high level of dependence of consumers on WhatsApp. Extent of multi- homing, as indicated by Dr. Pinar then Akman paper, seems incorrect. If, as stated in the paper, 86% of users multi-home between WhatsApp's and its competitors, WhatsApp's competitors' MAUs should be much higher (as opposed to only -86 million users for Telegram compared with WhatsApp 534 million users). Telegram and Signal have much smaller user bases compared to WhatsApp. [Para 91 @pgs. 47-48 of Impugned Order].
Competition Commission of India Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

(07/2012) Matrimony.Com Limited vs Google Llc & Others (30/2012) Consumer ... on 31 January, 2018

- all that is shown is that both mediums of advertising can be done by the same party and on the same web page, not that they are substitutable overall. 145.10 Google itself has been found to be dominant in the online search advertisement market in In Re: Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Ors. Case No. 07 of 2012 (Paras 20-21 and 103-106) and CUTS v. Google LLC & Ors. Case No. 30 of 2012. The assessment has to be done in the context of overall information available on record and the corresponding market reality, and not on the basis of submissions of one or two parties.
Competition Commission of India Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next