The Competition Commission of India (Commission) bench, comprising Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr. Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Mr. Deepak Anurag (Member), held that a mere commercial relationship between Google and Truecaller does not imply preferential treatment.
Background Facts
The Informant alleged that Google (Opposite Party) is granting exclusive access to Truecaller, allowing it to share users private contact information while prohibiting other apps from doing the same. This practice, according to the Informant, gives Truecaller an unfair advantage and distorts the market for caller ID and spam protection apps, effectively creating a monopoly for Truecaller.
The Informant cited Google’s Developer Policy, which forbids unauthorized disclosure of non-public contacts, and Truecaller’s privacy policy, which allows the sharing of such information.
The Informant further claimed that Google has shown preferential treatment to Truecaller due to their commercial arrangements, including Truecaller’s use of Google’s cloud storage and ad services. Additionally, Truecaller is preloaded on several leading Android smartphones, enabling it to upload all user contacts upon activation.
The Informant argued that Google’s provision of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) has facilitated Truecaller’s access to private contact data, while other applications have been denied such access. Despite a ban on data harvesting, Google allegedly continues to permit Truecaller to collect user data, thus distorting competition.
The Informant accused Google of abusing its dominance as the Android Platform vendor, violating Section 4(2)(b) of the Competition Act by limiting competition and promoting Truecaller in breach of its own policies.
Feeling aggrieved, the Informant filed a complaint before the Commission, requesting to enforce uniform policy application across all apps, ban Truecaller from making private contact information public, prevent Google from favoring Truecaller, and impose significant penalties on Google for creating a monopoly in the caller ID market.
Additionally, the Informant sought the Commission to temporarily block Truecaller from operating on the Play Store until the issue is resolved.
Response of Google
Google mentioned that Google Play Store policies ban unauthorized sharing of users’ non-public contacts, and all apps on the Play Store must follow these rules.
It further stated that the Informant misrepresented Truecaller’s privacy policies by selectively quoting them to suggest that Truecaller collects user contact information without consent. In reality, Truecaller’s privacy policies for the Play Store app require user authorization to access contact information and state that the app does not collect or share user contact details.
Observation by Commission
The Commission observed that the Informant relied on a version of Truecaller’s app that is no longer available on the Play Store while alleging preferential treatment and policy violations.
The Commission noted that the Informant claimed Google provided certain Android APIs to Truecaller for accessing user contact data. However, Google contended that these APIs are open-source and available to all developers, and the presence of other similar apps on the Play Store supported this.
Regarding the commercial relationship between Google and Truecaller, Google stated that no exclusivity provisions or contingency clauses existed in their arrangements. Therefore, the Commission held that a mere commercial relationship does not imply preferential treatment.
The Commission concluded that users voluntarily provided contact details to Truecaller. Therefore, the allegations of unauthorized publishing and preferential access by Google are incorrect. Therefore, the Commission found no prima facie case of violation of Section 4 by Google and directed the matter to be closed against Google.
Case – Ms. Rachna Khaira Versus Google India Private Limited
Citation – Case No. 03 of 2023