The Competition Commission of India held that exclusive agreements between an online movie ticketing platform and cinemas did not lead to market foreclosure. Despite dominance in the online ticketing market, the Commission found no evidence of denial of market access to competitors.
The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discriminatory. The policy was found to limit consumer choice and deny market access to parallel importers, leading to a ₹27.38 crore penalty.
The competition regulator found a prima facie case that large-scale cancellations followed by higher fares may amount to abuse of dominance. A detailed investigation has been ordered to examine unfair pricing and restriction of services.
The competition regulator dismissed allegations that restrictive turnover criteria in a hospital tender violated competition law. It held that procurement terms aligned with policy guidelines do not, by themselves, establish anti-competitive conduct.
The case examined allegations of market access denial and abuse of dominance in digital advertising and search services. The Commission closed the matter, holding that vague pleadings and lack of specific evidence did not establish a prima facie violation.
The Commission held that allegations over AI-based alteration of a film did not establish anti-competitive conduct. In the absence of evidence linking the conduct to Sections 3 or 4, the case was closed under Section 26(2).
Identical prices and bids filed within minutes in two tenders were held to be strong evidence of coordination beyond mere coincidence.
The Commission found that association-issued circulars prescribing uniform commercial terms amounted to price fixing under Section 3(3). The ruling highlights that trade association decisions among similar retailers fall squarely within anti-competitive prohibitions.
The Commission found prima facie evidence that restrictive actions and refusal of approval may have denied market access to private event organizers. It ordered a DG investigation into alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.
Observing that the tender had been cancelled and no proof of bid-rigging was provided, the Commission concluded that no competition concern arose and dismissed the information under Section 26(2).
