CCI dismisses complaint alleging digital ad manipulation by Google, Amazon, Flipkart, and others

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint alleging large-scale manipulation of online advertising systems and abuse of dominance by major digital platforms including Amazon Seller Services, Flipkart, and Wix.com, citing lack of concrete evidence and legally sustainable claims.

The complaint, filed by entrepreneur Preeti Kodwani, accused more than 20 companies and individuals of colluding to suppress her business’s online visibility, divert customers to competitors, and interfere with her digital marketing operations through what she described as biased search results, manipulated advertising placements, and tampering with digital identifiers such as email IDs and campaign data.

According to the filing, the alleged conduct caused severe commercial harm, cutting off the complainant’s access to customers, funding and investment opportunities, and undermining market transparency in India’s digital services ecosystem.

The informant further alleged that dominant platforms used their control over online advertising and search services to impose discriminatory conditions and unfairly restrict market access, in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The complaint also claimed that attempts were made to influence international customers, including those in the United States, to boycott the informant’s brand, raising concerns of coordinated refusal to deal.

Seeking urgent intervention, the complainant asked the CCI to order an immediate halt to the alleged hijacking and diversion of traffic, restore fair access to digital marketing systems, and initiate a full investigation into abuse of dominance and collusive behaviour.

However, in its order dated January 5, 2026, the Commission found that the allegations were “vague, broad and devoid of requisite particulars,” and that the supporting evidence submitted in the form of screenshots was “largely illegible and incapable of proper scrutiny.”

The regulator noted that despite naming 23 opposite parties in the matter, the complaint failed to clearly specify the role, conduct, and contribution of each entity, or establish how the alleged actions amounted to violations of competition law.

“Even otherwise, the information fails to specify the manner in which provisions of the Act are allegedly violated. In these circumstances, the allegations remain indeterminate and legally unsustainable,” the Commission said.

Based on its assessment, the CCI concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act warranting a detailed investigation. Consequently, the matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, and the request for interim relief under Section 33 was rejected.

The order was passed by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur along with members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag.