CCI Clears Google of Favoritism Allegations Involving Truecaller

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint by Rachna Khaira accusing Google of abusing its market position to favor Truecaller. CCI found no evidence supporting the claims of monopoly or preferential treatment, closing the case after thorough investigation.


PTI | New Delhi | Updated: 27-06-2024 15:20 IST | Created: 27-06-2024 15:20 IST
CCI Clears Google of Favoritism Allegations Involving Truecaller
AI Generated Representative Image
  • Country:
  • India

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint against Google India, alleging the tech giant abused its dominant market position to favor Truecaller in the caller ID and spam protection sector. The CCI found no evidence of competition law violations.

In its ruling, the fair trade regulator stated, 'The Commission finds no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act against Google in this matter.' Section 4 of the Competition Act addresses the abuse of dominant market position.

The complaint, lodged by Rachna Khaira, accused Google of granting exclusive access to Truecaller for sharing private contact information while denying the same to other apps. Khaira also alleged that Google's developer policy and Truecaller's privacy policy were in conflict, creating a market monopoly.

After reviewing submissions from both parties, the CCI concluded that Khaira's claims were unsubstantiated. The watchdog noted, '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.'

The CCI also examined commercial relationships between Google and Truecaller but found no evidence suggesting these agreements gave Truecaller a competitive advantage. The request for interim relief to block Truecaller from the Play Store was also rejected.

'The Commission finds no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act against Google,' it concluded, ordering the case to be closed.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback