2024 (11) TMI 940 - CCI - Law of Competition

Contravention of provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 - abuse of dominant position - it is alleged that Google is granting exclusive access to Truecaller to share private contact information of the users with everyone while prohibiting other apps from doing the same - HELD THAT - The Commission has perused the rival submissions of the Informant and Google. Based on the experiment run by the Informant, it appears that users have voluntarily provided the contact details data to Truecaller. Therefore, the allegations of the Informant that Truecaller is engaging in unauthorised publishing or that Google has allowed any preferential access to Truecaller do not appear to be substantiated. The Commission is of the view that 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 practises by allowing access to user s contact data to Truecaller while denying the same to the competing applications. 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. Accordingly, the Information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is also rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Alleged contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by Google in favoring Truecaller and distorting the market for caller ID and spam protection apps.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations by the Informant:
The Informant filed an Information against Google, alleging that Google is favoring Truecaller by granting exclusive access to share private contact information, thereby distorting the market for caller ID and spam protection apps. The Informant cited Google's Developer Policy and Truecaller's Privacy Policy to support the allegations of preferential treatment and monopoly space provided to Truecaller.

2. Commercial Arrangements and API Access:
The Informant further alleged that Google's commercial arrangements with Truecaller, including the use of Google's cloud storage and Ad services, have given preferential treatment to Truecaller. Additionally, the Informant claimed that Google provided APIs to Truecaller for harvesting private contact information, which was not extended to other applications.

3. Abuse of Dominance and Policy Violations:
The Informant accused Google of abusing its dominance as the vendor of the Android Platform by limiting caller ID and spam protection applications and promoting Truecaller, in violation of Google's own policies. The Informant sought relief, including compelling Google to enforce policies uniformly and imposing penalties for creating a monopoly in the caller ID market.

4. Submissions by Google:
Google refuted the allegations, stating that the Informant misinterpreted Truecaller's privacy policies and misrepresented the app's distribution on the Play Store. Google emphasized that its Play Store policies apply uniformly to all apps and that Truecaller's app on the Play Store complies with privacy policies.

5. Commission's Findings:
The Commission analyzed the alleged abusive conduct under Section 4, focusing on the relevant market for app stores for Android OS in India. Referring to previous cases involving Google, the Commission confirmed Google's dominance in the app store market. The Commission found the Informant's allegations unsubstantiated regarding preferential treatment to Truecaller, API access, and policy violations.

6. Conclusion and Order:
Based on the evidence and submissions, the Commission concluded that no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 was established against Google. The Information was ordered to be closed, and relief sought under Section 33 was rejected. The Commission directed the Secretary to communicate the decision to the Informant and counsel of the Opposite Party.