Indian Watchdog Dismisses Allegations of Google Abusing Dominant Position to Favor Truecaller
![](https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Google-antitrust.jpg)
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
NFL Found Guilty of Antitrust Violations in ‘Sunday Ticket’ Trial, Must Pay $4.8 Billion
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
StarKist and Former Bumble Bee Foods Owner Settle US Price-Fixing Suit
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Senate Probes Oil Giants for Price-Fixing with OPEC
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Spain to Lodge Anti-Competitive Complaint Against French Rail Operator Ouigo
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Jury Deliberates NFL’s ‘Sunday Ticket’ Class-Action Lawsuit
Jun 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Private Equity Roll-Up Schemes
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
The FTC’s Focus on Private Equity is Warranted
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Unraveling the Roll-Up: Private Equity’s Misunderstood Investment Strategy
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Focus on Private Equity Funds and Serial Acquisitions
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Private Equity Roll-Ups Amidst Heightened Antitrust Enforcement
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI