LegalBots.in
LegalBots.in
  • Home
  • About
  • Jobs
  • Events
  • Courses
  • Exams
  • Blog
  • Recruiter
  • Pricing
Sign In
Applicant Recruiter/Advertiser

Categories

  • ADR (4)
  • Artificial Intelligence (0)
  • Career FAQs (5)
  • Career Space (73)
  • Case Laws (27)
  • Civil Law and Tort Law (12)
  • Competition Law (2)
  • Constitutional Law (14)
  • Consumer Protection Law (5)
  • Contract Law (8)
  • Corporate/ Finance (12)
  • Criminal Law (18)
  • Data Privacy (11)
  • Environmental Law (2)
  • Guest Authors (4)
  • Information Technology Law (6)
  • International Law (5)
  • Interviews (19)
  • IPR (7)
  • Labour Law (7)
  • legal advice (29)
  • Legal Network Updates (14)
  • Legal Updates (17)
  • Others (9)
  • Property Law (6)
  • Public Law (5)
  • Scholarships and Fellowships (245)
  • Sports Law (2)
  • Students Corner (60)
  • Tax Law (3)
  • Technology Law (7)
  • Videos (0)
  • All(441)

Legal Blog

Publish with us

Filter Clear
Google Found in Violation of Antitrust Laws in Epic v. Google
Dec 13, 2023
Google Found in Violation of Antitrust Laws in Epic v. Google

Case: Epic v. Google   Introduction A federal jury has recently delivered a landmark decision in a case involving Google's alleged violation of antitrust laws in the operation of its Play mobile app store. The jury, comprised of nine individuals, deliberated for just over three hours before finding Google guilty. This case marks the culmination of a nearly three-year legal battle between the two parties, with significant implications for the future of mobile app development and distribution. This landmark case has major implications for the app store landscape and the broader digital economy. The outcome of this legal duel carries far-reaching implications, not just for app stores and video games, but for consumer choice, fair competition, and the future of the internet itself.   Background Epic Games, the developer of the popular video game Fortnite, took Google to court in 2020, alleging that the tech giant's control over the Google Play Store constituted an illegal monopoly. The Accusation: A Monopoly in the Digital Marketplace. This store, pre-installed on billions of Android devices, serves as the gatekeeper of apps, dictating how developers can reach their audience. Epic points to two key practices as evidence of this monopoly – the mandatory 30% in-app purchase fee levied on all transactions and the requirement for developers to use Google's own billing system. These, Epic argues, stifle innovation, limit consumer choice, and ultimately harm both developers and users. The tech giant argues that its Play Store has been instrumental in Android's success, providing developers with a secure and accessible platform to reach millions of users. The 30?e, they claim, is necessary to cover the costs of maintaining and securing the Play Store, ensuring a safe and reliable experience for both developers and users. Google further contends that Epic's case is fueled by self-interest rather than genuine concern for competition. According to information provided by Google through their official platform, the Google Play Store, app creators are subject to payment fees ranging between 15% and 30% for various transactions conducted through the digital marketplace. Specifically, these fees apply to both subscription-based apps as well as those offering in-app purchases (IAPs) obtained via the Play Store. Notably, Google claims that an impressive 99% of developers are eligible for a fee structure of no more than 15%, with certain exclusions applying to specific circumstances. The Jury's Verdict On December 11, 2023, the jury delivered its verdict, siding with Epic. The jury's findings were unanimous across all 11 questions presented, indicating a comprehensive rejection of Google's defence strategies. Specifically, the jury determined that Google's actions constituted a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits the maintenance of a monopoly through unfair or anticompetitive means. Furthermore, the jury concluded that Google's conduct caused harm to Epic Games, potentially paving the way for the imposition of remedial measures aimed at redressing this injury. While the specific penalties and remedies are yet to be determined, the jury's ruling has sent shockwaves through the tech industry and beyond. This verdict represents a major victory for Epic Games, which has been actively seeking to challenge the dominance of Google and Apple in the mobile app space since 2020. In light of the complexity involved in addressing these issues, Judge James Donato will not deliver his ruling until early 2024.    Impact of the verdict By successfully arguing that Google's actions constitute a violation of antitrust laws, Epic Games may now be poised to reshape the regulatory landscape surrounding mobile app development and distribution. Notably, the jury's decision could empower other developers to explore alternative app stores and payment systems, ultimately reducing the control exercised by Google and Apple over the mobile app ecosystem.  Google is expected to appeal the verdict, potentially leading to years of legal battles. Regulatory bodies are likely to take a closer look at the practices of major tech companies, with potential for stricter regulations and antitrust enforcement. The future of app stores and the entire digital ecosystem hangs in the balance.  However, it remains to be seen what specific remedies will be implemented as a result of this verdict.  Nevertheless, the prospect of increased competition within the mobile app industry holds significant promise for innovators and consumers alike, as it may lead to improved choices, reduced costs, and enhanced overall user experiences.  

  • Tripti Tripti
Comparative Advertising - Legality in India
Jul 15, 2021
Comparative Advertising - Legality in India

In today’s world, where the role of electronic media is rampant, advertising is a major tool to reach the masses. Visual representation has always had a lasting impact on the mind of consumers. Comparative advertising is a practice where a producer while advertising his product compares it with the product of the competitor by reference or by any representation of competitor's product. The producer uses the products of its competitor as a standard or benchmark and claims to exceed it. Comparative advertising displays a comparison of two different brands on numbered variants like price, quality by referring the alternative brand by name, visual illustrations or other distinctive attributes.   The Delhi High Court in Reckitt & Coleman of India v. Kiwi T.T.K[1]., explained the concept of disparagement in regard to comparative advertising, stating that a manufacturer is entitled to make a statement that his goods are the best and also make some statements for puffing of his goods and the same will not give a cause of action to the other traders or manufacturers of similar goods to institute proceedings as there is no disparagement or defamation or disparagement of the goods of the manufacturer in so doing. However, a manufacturer is not entitled to say that his competitor's goods are bad as to puff and promote his goods, and concluded that comparative advertising cannot be permitted which discredits or denigrates the trade mark or trade name of the competitor.   There is no specific legislative mechanism regulating comparative advertising in India therefore various statutes and the precedents set by various courts are followed while adjudging such matters.   Legal Framework   Trademarks Act, 1999. Section 29(8) of Trademarks Act, 1999 says that, A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising: (a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or (b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or (c) is against the reputation of the trade mark. The above mentioned provision mentions that if an act while advertising a particular mark is done to take unfair advantage of another mark, or is detrimental to the very distinct character of the other mark and is also against the reputation of the trade mark, then such act is an infringement and necessary action can be taken against the infringer. One cannot use the mark of another for his own profit. Section 30 of Trademarks Act, 1999 says that, Nothing in section 29 shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor provided the use—(a) is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and (b) is not such as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark. The above mentioned provision justifies comparative advertising authorising every person to use a registered trade mark for the purpose of identifying goods or services of the competitor but such use must only be done in accordance with the honest and fair trade practices. There should not be any mala fide intent to gain advantage of competitor's goodwill behind such use.   Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 21 (3) states that the CCPA can prevent the endorser of any such misleading and false advertisements from endorsing any other products or services for a period of one year. The issuer of any misleading advertisements shall also be liable to neutralise the effect of such advertisements. Section 21(4) of the Act, any person who publishes false and misleading advertisements may be punished with imprisonment or a penalty that may extend up to ten lakh rupees. Apart from the Statutory provisions, Advertising Standards Council of India has specified the certain norms or guidelines which should be kept in mind while promoting their goods through ads in its Code of Conduct, 1985. The guidelines states as follows: The producer must only make honest representation in the ads; The ads must not be offensive in any way to the general public; Ads must not be used for the promotions of products, hazardous or harmful to society or to individuals particularly minors, to a degree unacceptable to society at large; Ads must not in any way hamper competition.   Remedies Available Awarding Damages- Injunction is the only remedy given by the court in the matter of product disparagement. The most potent argument for the popularity of this remedy is that it eliminates the abusive advertisement from the market place. The purpose of which is to implement a court’s judgment that a wrong has been and will be committed, and to restore the beneficiary to its rightful position. Corrective Advertising- The Court may order specific language of the corrective advertisement and the duration of the campaign for the above. The statement in the corrective ad would be selected to counteract the misleading or false message of the abusive ad. The corrective advertisement must be designed to stimulate truth in the consumer’s minds while erasing the earlier deceptive message, which caused confusion and thus affected purchase decisions. Furthermore, corrective advertising helps support future truthful ads. Monetary Awards- Dishonest comparative advertising is an attempt to malign the competitor’s product. Since it causes special damage to the product, that is pecuniary harm, damages must be awarded to the aggrieved party.   Reference: Comparative Advertising: How far can one go?. Link can be retrieved here: https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/371760/comparative-advertising-how-far-can-one-go Comparative Advertising. Link can be retrieved here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=34b2ff7c-f7c8-47ba-a8c8-55e332b2048e Comparative Advertising in India: Evolving a Regulatory Framework. Link can be retrieved here: http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/F8C99C6C-3A07-4AB3-A181-C6733CE97631.pdf Trade Marks Act 1999 Bare Act. Link can be retrieved here: https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1999-47_0.pdf Consumer Protection Act 2019 Bare Act. Link can be retrieved here: https://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210422.pdf [1] [1996 PTC (193) T 399]  

  • Haardik Rathore Haardik Rathore
  • 1 (current)
×
  • Home
  • About
  • Jobs
  • Events
  • Courses
  • Exams
  • Blog
  • Recruiter
  • Pricing

  Applicant

  • Login
  • Register
  • Forgot Password

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
*
*
*
*
Password should contain one upper case,one lower case,one number and one special character with 8-30 characters.

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

  Advertiser

  • Login
  • Register
  • Forgot your password

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
*
*
*
*
Password should contain one upper case,one lower case,one number and one special character with 8-30 characters.

* By proceeding you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • about
  • privacy
  • terms of use
  • careers
  • contact us
  • sitemap

© 2021 Botmatrix Services Private Limited. All Rights Reserved.