The nature of regulations, enforcement authorities and their ability to enforce regulations has been known to have a profound effect on innovation.

As the internet transforms industrial processes, regulators across sectors and geographies are trying to achieve the right balance on regulating innovation – enough so that it is under effective control yet not stifled from growing.

In a recent policy brief on behalf of the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative, Kevin Werbach, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, advises policy makers and regulators that the next stage of digital advancement will lead to a phenomenon that he calls “Internet of the World” – an intersection of the on-demand/sharing economy, the Internet of Things and Big Data. He suggests that this stage would represent “the final destruction of artificial divisions between real and virtual”.

As we approach this stage at a rapid pace, law-making and regulation needs to evolve accordingly. Laws need to reflect the rapidly blurring boundaries between the physical and digital so that regulators are suitably equipped to accomplish their tasks across all mediums and sectors.

Continue Reading Emerging Trends in Market Power: An Update

This article was first published in The Practical Lawyer

The Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) was brought into force inter alia with the objective of curbing anti-competitive behaviour which causes appreciable adverse effect on competition in the Indian market, to ensure a fair competitive environment.[1] Although one does not find any mention of consumer welfare in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, the preface to the Act unequivocally lays down its spirit by providing that it intends to promote and sustain competition in the markets, to protect the interest of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in the market

In furtherance of this objective, the Act empowers the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with multifarious penal powers to ensure compliance with the legal regime. However, such provisions are predominantly directed towards penalising the violators rather than compensating the parties affected by the anti-competitive behaviour of one or more market players. To ensure that the victims of anti-competitive behaviour receive their dues, the Act also lays down a mechanism for such parties to seek compensation for the losses that they may have suffered due to the anti-competitive behaviour.

The private damages regime under the Indian competition law, which came into force in 2009, lays down the legislative foundation for consumers and competitors to sue for compensation in relation to the damages suffered as a result of the anti-competitive behaviour. Considering that the Competition Law is still in nascent stages in India, there has been no ruling pronounced in this space until date. While the case involving the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the MCX Stock Exchange (MCX- SX)[2] remains the sole case to utilise the private enforcement provisions of the Act, the matter remains sub judice. Curiously, in the celebrated case involving DLF[3], while private damages litigation was drawn up against DLF, it was consequently withdrawn.

Continue Reading Private Enforcement under Indian Competition Law – A Roadmap

The enforcement of any new law can throw many issues. These become especially prominent in the case of a law that is brought into force in phases – i.e. different provisions are made operational at different times.

The Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) is one such legislation. Though the statute was passed in 2003, its phase-wise notification extended up till 2011. More importantly, the sections/ provisions relating to anti-competitive agreements were notified[1] to come into force from 20 May 2009. The application of a provision/ section after an event is one such prickly issue.

The Supreme Court of India (SC) has examined the issue in the context of the Competition Act in the recent decision of Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India & Anr[2].

Continue Reading An Antitrust Time Machine: Application of Competition Act to Pre-Enactment Conduct

Non-compete clauses form an important part of various corporate transactions. They provide purchasers some protection against competition from sellers so that they may benefit by obtaining the full value of the transferred assets (both tangible and intangible). Such non-compete clauses can be necessary for purchasers to gain the loyalty of customers and to fully utilise the know-how acquired. In the case of Joint Ventures (JV), such clauses can be necessary to ensure that the JV partners are committed to the JV and do not, independently, end up competing with it.

However, these clauses, as they are essentially agreements not to compete, can give rise to competition law concerns and lead to scrutiny by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Continue Reading Non-Compete Clauses: CCI Issues Guidance Note

Keeping with the slew of changes introduced this year, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (“MCA”) has yet again altered the Indian merger control regime, by doing away with the mandatory 30 day deadline for filings notifications, post the trigger event. This brings the Indian merger control regime in sync with most mature competition law regimes, which do not have a fixed timeline within which a merger notice must be filed with the regulator.

By virtue of its powers under Section 54 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”), which allows the Central Government to exempt the applicability of any of the provisions of the Act for a specified period, the MCA has introduced a notification on June 29, 2017 which exempts an enterprise, from filing a notice within 30 days, for a period of five years, i.e., until June 28, 2022 (“Notification”).

Continue Reading Indian Merger Control – 30 Day Filing Timeline Ceases to Exist!

As soon as the details were disclosed, the Finance Bill, 2017 raised eye-brows[1] . Some noted that:

  • To minimise the number of tribunals, the Finance Bill, 2017 sought to merge eight tribunals with other tribunals and amended provisions relating to the structuring and re-organization of such tribunals.
  • The above measures were sought to be taken through a money bill, which is only supposed to contain provisions for imposition of taxes and withdrawal of money from the State Treasury.

Continue Reading Spanner in the Works? Judicial Challenge to the Finance Act, 2017

Clear skies emerge as competition authorities across jurisdictions become more sure-footed in dealing with the ever growing (new) digital economy.

The Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) confidence in dealing with apps and technologies is reflected in its relevant market[1] determination in cases concerning instant messaging apps.

On 1 June, 2017, the CCI passed an order[2] under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act), holding that the case did not warrant an inquiry into alleged abuse of dominant position by WhatsApp Inc (WhatsApp).

Continue Reading Where Do They Belong? Relevant Market Determination for Instant Communication Apps

On 14 June 2017, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of INR 87 crore (approx. USD 13.54 million) on Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL), which is engaged in the sale and distribution of Hyundai cars and its parts in India. This was for engaging in the practices of resale price maintenance (RPM) and tying in, in contravention of the provisions of Sections 3(4)(e) and 3(4)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act).

Continue Reading CCI’S First Substantive Order on Resale Price Maintenance

The Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) prima facie order under section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) allows the Director General (DG) to investigate alleged violations of the Competition Act. Parties under investigation, however, often allege that the DG investigations go beyond the scope of the order passed by the CCI.

Various High Courts are considering issues of this nature under their writ jurisdiction. However, the recent Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s (SC) decision in Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Another (Excel Case)[1] may provide an important perspective to the existing debate.

Continue Reading How far is too far? The Supreme Court’s View on the Scope of Director General Investigations