Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others

The case of Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others is a landmark competition law matter decided by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It deals with allegations that Google abused its dominant position in the markets for online general web search services and online search advertising services in India. Matrimony.com Limited, along with Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), brought forward complaints regarding Google’s allegedly unfair business practices that harmed competition and consumers.

The CCI, after an extensive investigation by its Director General (DG), found Google guilty of abusing its dominance and imposed a penalty of INR 135.86 crores (approximately USD 21 million). The case stands as a significant example of regulatory scrutiny on digital platforms in India, especially in the context of algorithmic search results and advertising.

Background and Parties in Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others

The proceedings in Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others began with two separate pieces of information filed by Matrimony.com Limited (formerly Consim Info Pvt. Ltd.) and CUTS. Both informants raised concerns about Google’s conduct in the online search and search advertising markets.

Google entities named in the case included Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, and Google Ireland Limited, considering their respective roles and operations impacting the Indian market.

CCI registered the matter as Case Nos. 07 and 30 of 2012, and directed the DG to investigate the allegations.

Allegations

The complainants in Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others raised multiple issues against Google, which broadly fell into two categories:

1. Search Engine Practices: Google was accused of promoting its own vertical search services—such as Google Flights, Google Maps, YouTube, and Google News—within the general search results, often in prominent positions regardless of relevance. This, it was alleged, caused “search bias” that hampered competing specialised search services.
2. Search Advertising Practices: The second set of allegations related to Google’s dominance in online search advertising. The complainants argued that Google imposed unfair, restrictive, and discriminatory terms on advertisers and third-party websites that syndicated Google’s search bars and advertisements. There were also concerns about Google’s keyword bidding policies involving trademarks.

Investigation by the Director General

The DG’s investigation was thorough and focused on defining the relevant markets, assessing dominance, and examining whether Google abused that dominance.

Relevant Market Definition

The DG identified two distinct relevant product markets for the purpose of the investigation:

• Online General Web Search Services in India: This was distinguished from specialised or vertical search services (such as site-specific or category-specific search platforms), which were considered non-substitutable.
• Online Search Advertising Services in India: This was defined separately from other online advertising forms such as display ads, social media advertising, email marketing, and mobile advertising. Online search advertising was viewed as targeting users based on their active search queries, making it a distinct and effective mode of advertising.

The DG also concluded that the geographic market was India, given the differing conditions of supply, demand, and competition compared to other countries.

Dominance of Google

The DG found that Google enjoyed a dominant position in both these relevant markets. Key factors supporting this conclusion included:

• Consistently very high market share by Google in terms of search queries and advertising revenue compared to competitors such as Yahoo! and Microsoft Bing.
• Significant entry barriers in the form of technology complexity, costs, network effects, and scale requirements.
• Google’s ability to operate independently of competitive forces, reinforced by its resources and commercial advantages.

Google contested the dominance claim, arguing that users had multiple search options, could switch easily, and that being a “free service” meant there was no trading relationship with users. The DG and later the CCI rejected these arguments.

Abusive Conduct

The DG’s report identified several instances where Google’s conduct constituted an abuse of its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002:

1. Search Results Manipulation and Bias
   
   • Until 2010, Google displayed “Universal Results” (vertical search results blended with general results) in fixed positions on the search results page (SERP) rather than ranking them by relevance. This misled users into believing the results were purely relevance-driven.
     
   • Google’s own vertical services, such as the “Flights Unit,” were given prominent placement, diverting users from competing services like MakeMyTrip or Yatra.
     
   • The DG noted that such practices distorted competition and harmed innovation by limiting exposure and market access for competing vertical search services.
     
2. Opaque Advertising Practices
   
   • Google was found not to disclose quality scores and other relevant historical data adequately to advertisers. This made the ad placement and bidding process non-transparent and susceptible to manipulation.
     
   • Google’s “House Ads” (its own advertisements) were exempt from fees, and Google had access to competitors’ ad performance data, giving it an unfair advantage.
     
3. Trademark Keyword Bidding
   
   • Google allowed competitors to bid on trademarked keywords, creating confusion among consumers and forcing trademark owners into bidding wars, thus exploiting their goodwill.
     
4. Restrictive Intermediation Agreements
   
   • Google imposed exclusivity and placement restrictions on third-party websites hosting its search bar and advertisements. These clauses prevented the websites from using competing search engines or displaying competing ads.

CCI’s Findings and Analysis in Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others

The CCI carefully considered the DG’s report, submissions by the parties, and international precedents.

• Market Definition and Dominance: The CCI accepted the DG’s definition of relevant markets and found Google dominant in both online general web search and online search advertising services in India.
• Free Service Defence Rejected: Google argued that since it offered search services free to users, there was no “sale” or “trading relationship,” and therefore Section 4 could not apply. The CCI disagreed, holding that users pay indirectly by providing data and attention, which Google monetises through advertising revenue.
• Abuse of Dominance: The CCI upheld three main abusive practices:
  • Fixed Positions of Universal Results Pre-2010: The fixed placement of Google’s vertical results was found to be misleading and unfair.
  • Prominent Placement of Google Flights Unit: The Flights Unit’s prominent display leveraged Google’s dominance in general search to boost its own vertical services unfairly.
  • Restrictive Clauses in Syndication Agreements: The exclusivity and ad placement restrictions in agreements with third-party websites were found to deny market access to competitors.
• Rejected Abuse Claims: The CCI did not find Google guilty of abuse in the following respects:
  • Alleged opacity in advertiser data disclosure was found not to be sufficient to establish abuse.
  • Trademark keyword bidding policies were deemed outside the scope of competition law, unless consumer harm was demonstrated.
  • Default search engine agreements with Apple and Mozilla were not exclusive and did not deny market access.
  • Alleged restrictions on multi-homing or data portability in advertising campaigns were unsubstantiated.

Penalty and Directions in Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others

The CCI imposed a monetary penalty of INR 135.86 crores (approximately USD 21 million) on Google, calculated as 5% of its average total revenue from relevant operations in India during financial years 2013 to 2015.

In addition, the CCI issued several directions:

• Google was ordered to cease fixing the positions of Universal Results and ensure that search results reflect relevance criteria.
• Google must display a clear disclaimer on the Flights Unit to inform users that clicking it leads only to Google’s own pages.
• Google was directed to remove exclusivity and placement restrictions from its syndication agreements with third-party websites immediately.

Conclusion

The Matrimony.com Limited v. Google LLC & Others ruling is a milestone for Indian competition law in the digital context. By carefully defining markets, affirming dominance, and identifying specific abusive practices, the CCI set out a balanced approach to platform regulation.

This case sets a precedent for how digital intermediaries and search engines may be regulated in India going forward, particularly as online markets grow and algorithms increasingly influence consumer choices and business competition.