Ms. Rachna Khaira And Google India Private Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission of India rejected an Information alleging Google abused its dominant position by favoring Truecaller. The Commissionheld that allegations of preferential treatment or API discrimination were unsubstantiated as they relied on non-Play Store apps or lacked evidence.
What did the court decide?
No case made out; Information ordered to be closed forthwith; request for interim relief under Section 33 rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 03 of 2023
In Re :
Ms. Rachna Khaira Informant And Google India Private Limited Opposite Party CORAM: Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson Mr. Anil Agrawal Member Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- 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.
- 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 favouring Truecaller and distorting the market for caller ID and spam protection apps thereby providing a monopoly space to Truecaller. In this regard, the Informant has relied on the following policies:
Case No. 03 of 2023 Page 1 of 8
- 2.1. Developer Policy of Google which states that Google does not allow unauthorised disclosure of people’s non-public contacts:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Informant has established a prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act by alleging preferential treatment to Truecaller.
Whether Google's actions amount to abuse of dominant position by limiting caller ID applications and promoting Truecaller.
Whether the allegations regarding unauthorized publication of contact information and discriminatory API access are substantiated by evidence.
Coram
Ravneet Kaur
Anil Agrawal
Sweta Kakkad
Deepak Anurag
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · June
- Case no.
- 03/2023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court