9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. - MS. RAVNEET KAUR CHAIRPERSON, MR. ANIL AGRAWAL MEMBER, MS. SWETA KAKKAD MEMBER AND MR. DEEPAK ANURAG MEMBER Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The Information in this matter was filed by Ms. Rachna Khaira under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act ) against Google India Private Limited (Google) alleging contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 2. It has been 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. By doing this, Google is fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to compel Google to temporarily block Truecaller from operating on the Play Store till the issue is resolved. 7. The Commission considered the matter in its meetings held on 21.02.2023 and 21.06.2023. Having considered the Information, the Commission vide its order dated 21.06.2023 directed the Informant to furnish documents/ evidence, if any, in support of allegations made in the Information. The Informant filed her reply on 07.08.2023. 8. Further, the Commission vide its order dated 22.11.2023 directed Google to provide its response to the averments and allegations made by the Informant along with certain queries of the Commission. The Informant was also allowed to file its rejoinder, if any, thereto with advance copy to Google. Google filed its reply with the Commission on 29.01.2024 whereas, the Informant filed her submissions on 27.04.2024. Thereafter, Google filed a voluntary submission on 03.05.2024. Submissions by Google 9. The averments of Google are summarised below: 9.1. The allegations of the Informant are incorrect, as the Google Play Store explicitly prohibits the unauthorised publishing or disclosure of users non-public contacts. The apps distributed on the Play S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta. Rather, the policy introduced a safety section in Google Play intended to help users understand the data an app collects or shares, if that data is secured, and additional details that impact privacy and security. As explained in the policy, developers listing apps on Google Play are required to complete a disclosure that, among other things, describes how their app shares and uses collected data. 9.7. Google has thus, inter alia prayed the Commission to dismiss the Information as the Informant provides no evidence that Truecaller s Play app violates Google s Play Store policies. 10. The Commission has perused and examined the information available on record including the Information filed by the Informant, submissions of Google, rejoinder of the Informant in its meeting held on 29.05.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. 11. It is noted that the Informant is primarily aggrieved by the disclosure of contact book of mobile phone users by Truecaller, whose primary function is to identify incoming calls by matching the caller's number with its database. The Informant alleges that Google is giving Truecaller special access to Android users' contact bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o such APIs to Truecaller. The presence of other caller ID and spam protection apps on Play Store providing the same service and undertaking the same function indicates that Google does not prohibit other caller ID apps from undertaking the same function and providing the same service as Truecaller. Accordingly, the allegation that Google is limiting competition in the market for caller ID and spam protection by exclusively allowing Truecaller to share contact information does not appear to be validated. 16. In relation to commercial relationship between Google and Truecaller through Google cloud computing services and Ad services, Google has stated that none of the arrangements contain any exclusivity provisions or any contingency clauses relating to the sharing of non-public contacts. In this regard, it is noted that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, mere commercial relationship between two entities ipso facto cannot be assumed to grant any favourable / preferential treatment outside of those commercial arrangements. 17. In relation to the allegations of the Informant that Google has allowed Truecaller to access data from Android platform before banning harvesting o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
