No Case Of Violations: CCI Closes Complaint Against The Association Of Certified Fraud Examiners, Netrika Consulting India Private Limited, And The Open Thinking Academy

The complaint was filed by the Informant against the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Netrika Consulting India Private Limited (NCIPL), and the Open Thinking Academy (OTA).

Brief Facts:

The Informant offers study resources and coaching for individuals aiming to become Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) through the course provided by the ACFE. The ACFE is a private organization based in the USA that focuses on reducing fraud and white-collar crimes. They conduct the CFE certification course, which requires passing an exam. Eligibility criteria for the exam are set by the ACFE through its Board of Regents. CFE credentials need to be renewed annually by paying a fee. This accreditation is globally recognized for its expertise in fraud prevention and detection.

NCIPL, a private consulting and investigating agency, is appointed by ACFE as an Authorized Training Partner (ATP) for CFE certification training in India, while OTA is ATP for four countries, namely, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Oman, and Malaysia, since 2015. It provides services for the CFE course and the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) course.

ACFE established itself early in the field of fraud prevention, securing partnerships with major organizations and becoming a dominant certification provider due to its ecosystem and anti-fraud education efforts.

With the rise in CFE exam applicants, the Informant began assisting candidates in exam preparation. In 2009, ACFE started offering study support, including training courses and appointing ATPs. NCIPL became ATP for India in 2019. The Informant provided that ACFE initially showed interest in making the Informant an ATP but later declined due to their agreement with NCIPL.

Contentions of the Informant:

The Informant argued and defined two relevant markets: expertise in fraud detection as the primary market and CFE exam preparation as the secondary market. She argued that ACFE is the only entity that provides CFE certification all over the world imparting an overall expertise in fraud detection and prevention. Further, she alleged that it holds a significant market share (55% to 76%) in the markets worldwide. The Informant accused ACFE of abusing its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions through its bylaws, which restrict third-party preparatory services for ACFE aspirants. Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement were also made by ACFE against the Informant. She also claimed that ACFE OP-1 accused her of infringing copyrights and trademarks and issued "cease and desist" notices based on trademark rights it did not possess, leading to content removal.

Additionally, ACFE appoints only one ATP in each country for CFE coaching and its ATP agreements allegedly create barriers to entry for potential tutors or institutes and foreclosure of competition causing Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) under Section 3(4) of the Act.

Observations of the Commission:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) observed that as per the facts of the case, it is not necessary to define a relevant market or establish dominance to evaluate the allegations under Section 4 of the Act. It noted that ACFE had issued notices to the Informant for unauthorized use of its study material, claiming copyright and trademark infringement. ACFE’s communications indicated that they agreed to the creation of study content but without infringing their intellectual property rights. The Informant agreed to remove objectionable content as per the said notices.

The Commission highlighted that ACFE also approached the Informant about becoming an ATP for India but later chose another entity as ATP due to its concerns about the Informant's repeated misuse of their copyrights and trademarks.

In conclusion, the CCI held that there is no contravention of the Competition Act by the entities and closed the case rejecting the Informant's request for relief under Section 33 of the Act. However, the CCI clarified that the Informant can seek remedies through appropriate legal forums.

Case Title: Mrs.Kanwaljeet Kaur Soni vs. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Inc. & Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order