The Delhi High Court may scrutinize whether the terms of Google's advertising program limit advertisers from seeking legal remedies in accordance with law or whether Arbitration proceedings should be held in such cases, in India.

"These advertising programs may be availed of by millions of customers of Google India Pvt Limited within the country, and, thus, the Court would like to consider as to whether such a clause (clause 13 of Advertisement Terms) would in fact prevent people like the Petitioner from availing their legal remedies in accordance with law in India or should arbitration in such cases be held in India," the Court said in its order dated March 27.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh issued a notice to Google and sought its response in the matter.

The Court expressed its concern over whether certain clauses, specifically Clause 13 of the Advertisement Terms, within Google's advertising programs might impede individuals like the petitioner, Startupwala, from accessing legal remedies within India.

Startupwala, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, sought an injunction against Google India to restore all digital ads disapproved or marked as 'Limited' between December 2023 and January 2024. Additionally, it sought to prevent Google from disapproving any remaining ads labeled as 'Limited by Policy.'

The Petitioner argued that since August 2023, some of its advertisements have been consistently disapproved by Google's advertising program, citing a policy named 'Government Documents and Official Services.' It also submitted that their advertisements are the mainstay for earning revenues, and the blocking of ads by Google, which is one of the main platforms, is resulting in an enormous financial loss to the company.

The Counsel for the Petitioner company contended that Clause 13 of the Advertisement Terms provides for an arbitration clause which states that the disputes between parties would be resolved by Arbitration which will be conducted in Santa Clara County, California, USA. He also submitted that this is a standard Arbitration clause in the Advertisement Terms and the said clause precludes it from exercising its legal remedies effectively. It alleged that the advertisements which are labelled as ‘Not eligible’ have been wrongly labelled as there is no non-compliance by the Petitioner of the ‘Government Document and Official Services’ policy.

On the contrary, Google raised an issue of territorial jurisdiction and the maintainability of the Petition. The Counsel sought time to seek instructions in the matter and file a short reply.

The Court noted, "Since the Respondent is yet to file a reply and there are no reasons on record as to why any of these advertisements are disapproved or marked as eligible (limited), the Court has considered the irreparable loss which can be caused to the Petitioner and its business."

Accordingly, the Court ordered, "Hence, it is directed that those advertisements which have currently not been blocked and are labelled as `Eligible (limited)’ in the above screenshots shall not be blocked or taken down till the next date of hearing. Mr. Mason submits that the said advertisements which are under the Petitioner’s control ought not to be modified. Accordingly, the above order shall be subject to the condition that the advertisements would be run as they are running and the content thereof shall not be modified till the next date of hearing."

The Bench directed Google to file its reply within two weeks and posted the matter for further consideration on April 22.

Cause Title: Startupwala Private Limited v. Google India Private Limited [O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 96/2024 & I.A. 6942/2024]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Devashish Marwah, Biyanka Bhatia, Aneesha Rastogi, Shohit

Respondent: Advocates Neel Mason, Vihan Dang, Ekta Sharma, Pragya Jain, Ujjawal Bhargava, Aditya Mathur

Click here to read/download the Order



Justice Prathiba M SinghDelhi High Court

Sukriti Mishra