The Domination of Sport

Two of the complaints presently before the Commission are those filed against Hockey India by several Hockey Olympians as well as a group of chess players who have separately approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) over the abuse of dominant positions by the respective authorities overlooking their sports in India.

Hockey India, which holds the sole mandate to govern and conduct all activities for hockey in India warned players that if they participated in the World Series Hockey (WSH) proposed by the Indian Hockey Federation, they would lose their position in the national team.

Interestingly, there is little to go by precedent on this specific issue, i.e., whether a sports regulatory body abuses its dominant position by imposing certain restrictive conditions upon the players affiliated to it, and therefore the Commission could end up conducting some pioneering research and analysis in this field. while there have been cases on the legality of exclusivity arrangements in the sports sectors regarding sports equipment and sportswear ( See American needle v. NFL), the closest dispute to the present issue arose in the EU in the withdrawn preliminary reference in the Oulmers Case, which involved issues relating to the right of clubs to be compensated by national federations for the release of their players for international games and tournaments. It was initiated by a complaint lodged by ASOBAL (the Spanish Handball League) before the European Commission in March 2009. The complainant argued that by precluding the payment of a compensation to clubs the regulations governing the release of players restricted competition were contrary to both articles 101 and 102 TFEU. The European Commission took an interest in the case and started a preliminary investigation which was only put to an end pursuant to an agreement between ASOBAL and the European Handball Federation.

It will be interesting to see how the Commission handles this complaint.

Legal Analysis of Google’s AdWords Programme and its Conflict with Indian Competition Law

I have recently written a post for the India Law and technology Blog titled “Legal Analysis of Google’s AdWords Programme and its Conflict with Indian Competition Law”.

The post shall try’s to determine whether there is any substance in the allegations leveled against the internet giant of violating competition laws across various jurisdictions and whether there is a solution available to Google without banning the software all together.

Google and its Anti – Trust Woes (Again !!)

Google has once again courted trouble, literally speaking, against itself in the competition sector with matchmaking portal BharatMatrimony.com having filed a complaint against Google in the Competition Commission of India, citing discriminatory trade practices related to its AdWords program.

The issue arising out of the complainant is the same one which was raised against Google earlier in Eximcorp India Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. (Case no. 68/2010) before the Commission. The commission in its previous decision had concluded that there was no prima – facie evidence to make out a case for further investigation by the Director General into the matter.

Doesn’t look like Google’s Anti – Trust woes are ending anytime soon !!

CCI Annual Report 2010 – 2011

The CCI recently released its Annual Report for the year 2010 – 2011.

It is notable that the total number of matters pending before the Commission at the end of the year seems to have risen to 99 from 78 in the previous year. This is deduced as the total number of matters pending before the Commission were 155 out of which 47 should have been disposed off as no prima – facie violations of law were noticed. Furthermore, another 8 matters were disposed of under section 26(6), i.e., under the recommendation of the Director – General. Finally, 1 order was passed under section 27 where the offence was proved.

Granted, it isn’t a large backlog and there isn’t much of a reason to complain considering the reputation of the Indian judicial and tribunal system. However, the disposal rate of the Commission where the offence stands proved is worrying. Especially since the Director – General’s office seems to be extremely efficient, having submitted 66 reports to the Commission, with a disposal rate of an impressive 80.5 percent.

CCI gets “Linked”

The Competition Commission of India now has a group on Linkedin. While it may not be an official group, and has not been started a member of the CCI, the presence of such a group is important in order to help the Commission to better interact with all stakeholders in the Commissions work. More importantly, it helps to develop a common portal to discuss the work of the CCI, which should help grow the understanding of competition law in India.

Heres hoping the Commission realises the potential of such online interactive portals.

A Suggestion For The CCI

The European Commission recently released a brochure entitled “Compliance matters: What companies can do better to respect EU competition rules.”

Though to be honest, I haven’t been able to find the time to read the brochure therefore I cannot comment on its utility, but perhaps the Competition Commission of India can also release a similar brochure on the Competition Act in combination with the ministry of Corporate Affairs. Such a brochure could serve a two fold purpose:

1. Clarify the Commission’s and the Ministry’s stand regarding specific competition law issues, i.e., resolve the debate regarding the various conflicts between the Competition Act and other laws.

2. Help companies and law firms understand competition law in India and the Commission better.

A New Chairman, But A Right One ??

Former finance secretary Ashok Chawla was on Thursday sworn in as the new Chairman of the Competition Commission of India, filling up the key post that was lying vacant for over four months.

The appointment of a new Chairman is welcome, but one must wonder whether the former head of the Committee on Allocation, Pricing and Utilisation of Natural Resources is up to the task which he will now have to shoulder. The Commission has been subject to severe criticism in the past few months over the reasoning of its decisions and clearly requires an individual with not only a sound bent of logic and intelligence (which no doubt Mr. Chawla has), but also an individual with excellent knowledge and experience of competition law. Unfortunately, the latter characteristic is presently comparatively hard to find in India.

According to Hindustan Times, when asked about his mandate after taking charge, Chawla said, “It is difficult for me to prioritise any matter right now as I am yet to take a stock of the Commission.”

Also among the nominees was Mr. Anurag Goel, a Member of the Commission. With no intentions to demean Mr. Chawla, perhaps it would have been better to let an individual who has prior experience in the working of the Commission be made in charge of the regulatory authority.

It seems best to reserve judgement and to let the new Chairman’s work speak for itself.

A Comment on the Walt Disney (South Asia) and UTV Combination Order

At the very outset, it should be mentioned that the speedy clearance for the proposal of combination of The Walt Disney Company (South Asia) and UTV Software Communications Limited is encouraging, despite the apparent staff shortage at the CCI. However, while I find no reason as of now to oppose the merger, the reasoning of the Commission on a certain ground is questionable and does lay some credence to the criticisms leveled against the Commission on the reasoning of its orders.

The Commission seems to have relied heavily on the fact that Disney is primarily an English broadcasting medium whereas UTV is a Hindi broadcasting medium. Such reasoning is unsound and questionable. The language of communication in any merger of broadcasting or media companies is irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact which the merger would have on the entertainment industry, and consequently, the audience as a whole. Assuming hypothetically that the merger would result in dominant position in the media entertainment market for Disney, the language of broadcasting would not matter in case it tried to abuse its dominance. If Disney had to do so, it would do it by asserting itself in the industry as a whole, not in the Hindi or English segment specifically. In other words, the ‘relevant market’ to be determined should not be based on the language of broadcasting but rather the entire broadcasting industry as a whole.

The Order can be found here.