Indian Watchdog Dismisses Allegations of Google Abusing Dominant Position to Favor Truecaller
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint against Google India, which alleged that the tech giant abused its dominant position to favor Truecaller in the market for caller ID and spam protection apps. The CCI found no evidence of any violation of competition law.
In a detailed ruling, the fair trade regulator stated, “The Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is made out against Google in the instant matter.” The complaint, filed by Rachna Khaira, accused Google of granting exclusive access to Truecaller for sharing private contact information while prohibiting other apps from doing the same. Khaira argued that this practice distorted the market and created a monopoly for Truecaller.
Khaira further alleged that Google’s developer policy prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of non-public contacts, while Truecaller’s privacy policy allows for such sharing. She also claimed that Google favored Truecaller due to commercial arrangements involving Google’s cloud storage and advertising services.
Read more: Google Accuses India’s Competition Commission of Protecting Amazon
After a thorough review of submissions from both Google and Khaira, the CCI concluded that the informant’s claims were unsubstantiated. The CCI’s order stated, “…the allegation of the Informant remains unsubstantiated and despite sufficient opportunity, the informant has not provided any evidence to prima facie establish that Google is according either preferential treatment to Truecaller or resorting to discriminatory practices by allowing access to user’s contact data to Truecaller while denying the same to competing applications.”
Additionally, the India addressed the allegations regarding commercial relationships between Google and Truecaller, clarifying that mere commercial relationships do not imply preferential treatment unless proven.
Source: Business Standard
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand