Author: kkslawoffices

The Supreme Court (SC) while observing the absurdness in decision making shown by the Kerala High Court in dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by partner of a homosexual couple, has issued detailed guidelines to be observed by the High Courts or Courts dealing with such situations which inter alia, includes that – such habeas corpus petitions must be given priority, production and in-person interaction of the corpus with the judge(s), wishes of the corpus must not get unduly influenced by the Court, Police or the natal family during the course of proceedings etc. In this case, the SC dealt with a situation in which the Kerala High Court had directed the person engaged in a homosexual relationship to undergo counselling session with a psychologist.

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has imposed a fine of €10 million on Bytedance Ltd. group, which operates Tik Tok for failing to take adequate measures to prevent the dissemination of potentially dangerous content like “French scar” challenge on its platform. According to AGCM, Tik Tok breached its own user guidelines which assures the platform to be a ‘safe space’, since it adopted a “recommendation system” based on Algorithmic user profiling, through which these content were repetitively shown to the target audience with the aim of increasing the user time spent on platform in order to generate more advertisement revenue.

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with the issue of determinative factors while ascertaining the number of years a convict has to undergo before remission in heinous offences cases, has laid down 8 factors to be considered by the courts which, inter alia, includes the number, age and gender of victims, nature of injuries, motive of the accused, premeditated nature of offence etc. The SC while taking note of the presence of abovementioned factors and the mitigating circumstance in the case at hand, upheld the order of sentence passed by the Kerala High Court.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in an information filed by Indian apps developers & their industry associations, alleging imposition of discriminatory and unfair terms and service fees/commission for processing payments for paid app downloads & in-app purchases, has prima facie held Google to be violating Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). Pursuant to the CCI’s Order in 2022, Google updated its billing policy & allowed the app developers to adopt Alternate Billing System (ABS) instead of Google’s proprietary Google Play Billing System (GPBS). However, the service fees/commission charge while using ABS –11% & 26% in comparison to 15% & 30% when using GPBS has no rationale as per CCI, especially, in view of Google’s own submission that it does not require more than 6% of the revenue share to break even on the services provided by Google. The readers may recall that earlier also CCI had initiated a case against Google under Section 42 of the Act for contravening with its 2022 Order.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a case filed by one of the shop owners in the Metropolitan Mall, Gurugram (Mall) against the unfair trade practices being carried out by the developer of the Mall – MGF Development Ltd. & its maintenance agent – MGF Mall Management, by not handing over the management of the Mall to the Association of owners of the Mall and thereby carrying out the maintenance and supply of electricity at exorbitant rates. However, the CCI noting that allegations for abuse of dominant position cannot be sustained as there are other malls in Gurugram and nearby areas & further that the Information fails to provide sufficient proof of violation in terms of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, dismissed the case.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), in an appeal filed by Bloomberg against the order of the Additional District Judge, Saket Courts – New Delhi (ADJ) wherein the ADJ had passed an ex-parte ad-interim order directing Bloomberg to take down a story published by it against Zee Entertainment, has upheld the ADJ’s order, noting that the “triple test” for grant of an ad-interim injunction exists in the present case. The DHC further took note of the scope of interference by the appellate court in such cases is limited to the extent of examining whether the power granted to the court of instance has been exercised “arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions”.

The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has given its assent to the proposed acquisition of MorphoSys AG (MorphoSys) by Novartis AG (Switzerland) (Novartis). MorphoSys is global bio-tech company specializing in the development of drugs for treatment of Leukaemia – “Pelabresib”, whereas, Novarties produces drugs for nearly all major medical fields including “Ruxolitinib” for Leukaemia. Bundeskartellamt highlighted the relevance of transaction value threshold which allowed it to examine the proposed acquisition, which would otherwise had been out of the purview of examination. However, Bundeskartellamt on finding a large number of possible alternatives, in development phase or already available in the market, to Novartis & MorphoSys’ offering opined that the acquisition is not expected to “significantly impede effective competition” in the affected markets.

The German Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has found Deutsche Bahn (DB) to be abusing its dominant position in the railway transport and infrastructure markets in Germany, by restricting competition coming from third-party mobility platforms. Mobility platforms provides integrated route planning for travellers and heavily rely on DB offerings and transport data for providing its services. Bundeskartellamt found DB abusing its dominant position by providing discriminatory treatment to these third-party mobility platforms especially by imposing “data sharing limitations, advertising restrictions, vertical pricing constraints, stringent discount prohibitions, and the withholding of commissions crucial for the sustenance of third-party platforms”.

The Japan Fair Trade Commission (Japan FTC) has published a detailed “Market Study Report on Connected TV and Video On-demand Service, etc.” (Report) on the background of decline in viewing time of conventional TV broadcasting & increase in Video On-demand Services (VOD). The Report highlighted that the TV Operating System providers (TVOS) are at the core of the system enabling the service of Connected TV and dependence of VOD service providers like Netflix, Amazon etc. in high on TVOS providers. The Report also highlighted that Google and Amazon dominate the TVOS market and the market is likely to lead in an oligopoly; whereas, the VOD market is fairly segmented raising concerns regarding their bargaining power over TVOS providers.

The United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority, after conducting an in-depth inquiry into the Arçelik and Whirlpool – two largest manufacturers of in the “major domestic appliance” segment in the UK, noting that there exists enough competitive constraints from Bosch, Haier Group, Samsung, LG, HiSense & other private label brands, has allowed the deal go through. As per the agreement, Arçelik will set up a new standalone business, Beko Europe B.V. with Arçelik and Whirlpool holding 75% & 25% shares, respectively.