Competition Quarterly Milestones – Orders and Judicial Decisions (October-December 2025)

On 11 December 2025, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found three liquor vendor associations in Maharashtra and some of their office bearers to have colluded in the distribution/sale of alcoholic beverages.¹ Acting on an anonymous complaint from an alcoholic beverages company, the CCI determined that the associations had engaged in price fixing and control of market entry. In particular, specific conduct indicative of cartelisation included: (i) requiring manufacturers to obtain a No-Objection Certificate from the associations before launching new products; (ii) imposing commercial obligations as a prerequisite to the grant of the Letter of Introduction (LOI); (iii) levying a compulsory “launching fee” on all new products introduced for sale to association members; and (iv) collectively determining/enforcing retail margins, selling price, cash discounts and other commercial terms which are ordinarily matters of bilateral negotiation between the manufacturers and individual retailers.

The CCI noted that efficiency enhancement or legitimate market representations are no justifications for collusive conduct. Although the CCI issued a cease-and-desist order, it refrained from imposing monetary penalties on the associations or office bearers, citing mitigating factors such as the first-time nature of the offence, discontinuation of the conduct, absence of personal financial gain, and limited financial capacity of the associations.

The CCI’s order in this case is emblematic of the CCI’s continued enforcement against cartels.

In its order dated 6 October 2025, in a complaint filed against Google Play Store, the CCI held that when assessing whether a company is abusing its dominant position, it is not enough to analyse the company’s conduct in isolation – it must be assessed for reasonableness and market context.²

The complaint was filed by Liberty Infospace, an app developer, alleging that Google’s Play Store terms, the termination of its developer account, and Google’s refusal to entertain appeals were arbitrary, discriminatory, and an abuse of Google’s dominant position.

Google argued that its actions were justified under its “relation-ban” policy, which bans accounts from its Play Store if linked to previously terminated/removed accounts to protect platform integrity and user safety. Google also explained that providing detailed reasons in response to Liberty’s appeals could enable bad-faith developers to “game” the system, compromising user safety.

The CCI determined that while Google holds a dominant position in the “market for app stores for Android OS in India“, its conduct did not amount to an abuse of that dominance. The CCI noted that Google’s practices: (i) are globally established and consistent across all jurisdictions; (ii) are consistent with market norms; and (iii) have previously been reviewed (and permitted) by the CCI.³ Accordingly, the matter was closed without the direction of investigation.

The CCI has imposed the maximum leviable penalty on six companies and their executives for bid rigging in tenders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation for solid waste processing plants.⁴ This is the first case where the CCI imposed penalties based on the ‘global turnover‘ of the parties concerned.

The case began in 2015, with the filing of a complaint alleging bid rigging/collusive bidding in various tenders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation. In 2018, the CCI penalised the companies and their executives (at 10% of the average income of last three financial years), after finding them guilty of collusive bidding. In 2022, the National Competition Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upheld the cartel findings but remanded the case to the CCI to reconsider the penalty, citing insufficient reasoning and lack of opportunity for the parties to be heard. The CCI’s challenge of the NCLAT order in the Supreme Court was dismissed, and the Supreme Court directed the CCI to reassess the penalty.

Following hearings in August 2025, the CCI evaluated the parties’ conduct and recomputed the penalties for all six contravening entities applying the 2024 Penalty Guidelines.⁵ However, instead of using ‘relevant turnover’ as the base for calculating the penalties, it used ‘global turnover’ and imposed the maximum penalty of 10% of the average global turnover of the preceding three financial years. The 2024 Penalty Guidelines authorise the CCI to use global turnover instead of relevant turnover, where it is not feasible to calculate relevant turnover or the computation would yield zero. The CCI held that using ‘relevant turnover’ as a metric for determining penalties in this case would not be equitable, given that certain companies were found guilty of submitting cover bids despite having no revenue in the relevant solid waste management market. The CCI also rejected some of the mitigating factors submitted by the parties (including parties’ ignorance of law, the case being a first-time offence, lack of monetary benefit from cover bids, and no hindrance being caused to other participants), given the severity of collusive conduct.

On 4 November 2025, the NCLAT largely affirmed the CCI’s order holding that WhatsApp and Meta had abused their dominant market position by forcing users to accept unfair data-sharing terms, violating Section 4 of the Competition Act, which prohibits abuse of dominance.⁶

In 2021, WhatsApp updated its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy (2021 Update). The CCI found the 2021 Update to be abusive, reasoning that it was offered on a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ basis, compelling WhatsApp users to accept revised terms that allowed data sharing within the Meta Group. This was considered an unfair condition under Section 4(2)(a)(i) (imposition of unfair or discriminatory conditions by a dominant enterprise) of the Competition Act, given the lack of effective alternatives.

The CCI further noted that sharing WhatsApp user data across Meta entities for purposes beyond messaging could create entry barriers in the online display advertising market. It also found that Meta leveraged its position in messaging to strengthen its presence in the online display advertising market, violating provisions of Sections 4(2)(c) (indulging in practices resulting in denial of market access) and 4(2)(e) (leveraging dominance in one market to gain an advantage in another) of the Competition Act, respectively. The CCI imposed a penalty of INR 213.14 crore (~ USD 23.6 million) and issued remedial directions. Meta challenged the decision before the NCLAT, arguing, inter alia, that the case involved privacy and data protection issues falling outside the CCI’s jurisdiction.

NCLAT Findings:

Remedies: The NCLAT upheld/amended the remedies imposed by the CCI as follows:

CCI’s clarification application: On 15 December 2025, the NCLAT clarified that the directions in relation to privacy and consent safeguard remedies apply to all non-WhatsApp purposes, including display advertising.

The NCLAT’s ruling suggests that competition law and data privacy can be concurrent areas of regulation in complex digital markets. It has also highlighted that degrading user privacy can amount to an abuse of dominance under competition law.

Meta and WhatsApp have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the NCLAT’s decision to uphold the CCI’s INR 213.14 crore penalty and its findings on abuse of dominance.

The NCLAT’s ruling arose from an appeal, challenging the CCI’s prima facie dismissal of a complaint against Vifor International (AG) (Vifor).⁷ The complainant had alleged before the CCI that Vifor’s licensing terms and pricing for its patented active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) used in manufacturing injectables were unfair and discriminatory.

The CCI dismissed the complaint, holding Vifor’s distribution arrangement to be reasonable and recognising its autonomy as the patent holder to select licensees. On appeal, while the NCLAT upheld the dismissal, it relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v CCI⁸ (along with the Supreme Court decision affirming it)⁹ to conclude that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate patent-related disputes in the facts of the case. The CCI has challenged the NCLAT’s decision before the Supreme Court.

A division bench of the Kerala High Court affirmed the decision passed by a single-judge bench upholding the CCI’s jurisdiction over abuse of dominance even in regulated sectors like broadcasting. The single bench clarified that the Competition Act and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997 operate as parallel legislations. (To read our update on the single judge bench decision, click here).

The division bench upheld the single judge’s decision of concurrent jurisdiction of TRAI and CCI, particularly in the facts of this case, as it purely involved competition concerns rather than technical or sectoral regulatory issues. The bench directed the CCI to address the issue of jurisdiction before deciding on the merits of the matter.¹⁰

This case is illustrative of the continuing debate on the jurisdictional boundaries of the CCI in matters involving specialised sectoral regulators.