Mexico’s antitrust regulator, the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE), has ruled that Google cannot require mobile device manufacturers in Mexico to use the Android operating system as a condition for doing business with the company. The decision orders changes to Google’s contracts and business practices in the country, signaling a significant shift in how mobile software can be bundled and negotiated with hardware makers.
Regulator’s Decision and Orders to Google
The Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) in Mexico resolved an Android competition case involving Google, concluding that the company’s existing arrangements with device makers raised antitrust concerns. In its resolution, COFECE determined that Google’s practices around the Android operating system could not continue in their current form, particularly where they tied access to key services or commercial terms to the mandatory use of Android on smartphones sold in Mexico. By formally resolving the Android competition case, the regulator set out a clear framework for how Google must conduct itself in the Mexican mobile ecosystem.
As part of the ruling, COFECE ordered Google not to impose the use of the Android operating system on mobile device manufacturers that operate in Mexico. The regulator instructed the company to modify contractual conditions with mobile device makers so that the choice of operating system is not dictated by Google’s standard agreements or by indirect pressure through bundled services. For manufacturers, regulators, and rival software providers, the decision establishes that Google’s contracts must be structured in a way that does not condition commercial advantages on exclusive or preferential use of Android, which COFECE views as essential to preserving open competition in the market.
Impact on Mobile Device Manufacturers in Mexico
Mobile device manufacturers in Mexico will no longer be bound by contractual terms that obligate them to pre-install or rely on Android as a prerequisite for partnering with Google. Under COFECE’s order, companies that assemble or sell smartphones in the country are expected to gain more flexibility to decide whether a given handset runs Android, a different mobile operating system, or a customized software layer that competes more directly with Google’s own services. For producers of devices ranging from entry-level handsets to premium models, this change alters the negotiating balance, since they can point to the regulator’s decision when resisting clauses that previously locked them into a single operating system.
The decision also opens space for manufacturers to consider alternative operating systems without facing penalties from Google, such as the loss of access to key apps or unfavorable commercial terms. COFECE’s order is explicitly intended to prevent Google from using its contracts to restrict competition among mobile software providers, which means device makers should be able to experiment with different platforms, app stores, or service bundles without fearing retaliation embedded in their agreements. For stakeholders across the supply chain, from chipset vendors to local assemblers, the ruling could encourage more differentiated products and pricing strategies, potentially leading to a broader range of devices and software experiences on Mexican shelves.
Competition and Market Effects in Mexico’s Mobile Ecosystem
COFECE concluded that Google had engaged in conduct that could limit competition in the Mexican mobile operating system market, focusing on how contractual obligations around Android influenced which platforms could realistically reach consumers. By tying the use of Android to broader commercial relationships with device makers, Google’s practices were seen as capable of discouraging rival operating systems from gaining a foothold, even if those alternatives might offer distinct features or business models. The regulator’s assessment underscores that control over a dominant operating system can translate into leverage across adjacent markets, including app distribution, search, and digital advertising, which are central to how users experience smartphones.
The ruling aims to foster greater competition among operating systems beyond Android on smartphones sold in Mexico, with the expectation that more open contractual terms will lower barriers for competing platforms. By curbing contractual restrictions tied to Android, COFECE expects more choice for Mexican consumers and developers, who could see additional options for devices and software ecosystems. For consumers, that might translate into phones that prioritize privacy tools, local services, or alternative app stores, while developers could benefit from a more diverse set of platforms on which to distribute apps such as WhatsApp, Spotify, or local banking applications. In my view, the regulator is betting that loosening Google’s grip on the operating system layer will ripple outward, encouraging innovation and reducing the risk that a single platform dictates the rules of the mobile market.
Google’s Position and Potential Next Steps
Google has been formally ordered to comply with COFECE’s directives regarding its Android-related contracts in Mexico, which places the company under clear legal obligations to adjust how it structures agreements with mobile device manufacturers. The resolution means that Google must review and, where necessary, rewrite clauses that effectively require the use of Android as a condition for accessing its services or for participating in promotional programs tied to smartphones sold in the country. For a company that has long relied on Android’s ubiquity to support its broader ecosystem of apps and advertising products, the compliance process will be closely watched by regulators and industry participants who want to see whether the practical changes match the spirit of COFECE’s decision.
At the same time, the company retains legal avenues to respond to COFECE’s resolution, including the possibility of challenging aspects of the decision in Mexican courts if it believes the regulator overstepped or misinterpreted competition law. Any appeal or compliance plan by Google will influence how quickly contractual changes reach mobile device manufacturers in Mexico, since ongoing litigation could delay full implementation or lead to negotiated adjustments in the remedies. For stakeholders such as local carriers, retailers, and software developers, the timeline of Google’s response will determine when they can fully rely on the new regulatory framework in their own planning, whether that involves launching devices with alternative operating systems or renegotiating existing supply and distribution agreements.
Broader Significance for Tech Antitrust Enforcement
COFECE’s action against Google adds Mexico to the list of jurisdictions scrutinizing how large tech platforms use mobile operating systems to shape competition, particularly where a single company’s software underpins a vast share of smartphones. By resolving the Android competition case with a clear order that Google cannot impose the use of Android on mobile device manufacturers, the Mexican regulator is signaling that behavioral remedies targeting contract design are a viable tool for addressing concerns about digital market dominance. For global technology firms, the decision highlights that antitrust scrutiny is no longer confined to a handful of major economies, but is increasingly emerging from regulators across Latin America and other regions that are central to user growth.
The resolution of the Android competition case in Mexico could serve as a reference point for future antitrust investigations into digital markets in Latin America, particularly those involving mobile ecosystems, app distribution, and platform interoperability. The decision underscores how national regulators are increasingly willing to impose behavioral remedies on companies like Google to address concerns about market dominance in mobile ecosystems, rather than relying solely on fines or structural breakups. In my assessment, the Mexican ruling contributes to a broader global pattern in which authorities seek to rebalance power between dominant platforms and the manufacturers, developers, and consumers that depend on them, using contract-focused interventions to open space for new competitors and business models.
