June 07, 2017

Competition News Bulletin - June, 2017

1. Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses allegations of abuse of dominance against WhatsApp- The CCI closed abuse of dominance allegations against WhatsApp in relation to changes introduced by WhatsApp in its privacy policy in August 2016 whereby the users of WhatsApp have been forced to share their account details and other information with Facebook in order to continue availing the services of WhatsApp. CCI found that there was no prima facie case to investigate the alleged conduct of WhatsApp even though it was found to be in a dominant position.
2. Supreme Court upholds the concept of “relevant turnover” for imposition of penalty under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act)- The Supreme Court vide its landmark judgement has upheld the decision of Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) holding that penalty for anticompetitive practices found to be in violation of the Act should be on the basis of ”relevant turnover” relating to the particular product, and not on the total turnover on multi-product companies.
3. Supreme Court allows appeal of Competition Commission of India against Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television- The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the COMPAT and held that the prohibition of dubbed serial on the television is a violation of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the original majority order of the CCI which was earlier set aside by COMPAT.
4. CCI penalizes Malayalam Movie Artists Associations for boycotting a competitor- CCI has penalized Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) and Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) for boycotting a competitor in violation of Section 3(3)(b)of the Act.
5. CCI penalizes Cairnhill CIPEF Limited and Cairnhill CGPE Limited for delay in notifying a combination- CCI has penalized Cairnhill entities for violation of the mandatory notification regime under Section 6(2) of the Act. The CCI held that the composite combination was  not covered under Item I of Schedule I of the Combination Regulation, 2011 as the agreement entitled the Investors to appoint one director on the board of directors of Target  and also conferred certain affirmative rights to the Investors inter alia including commencement of a new lines of business, which confers control.