Delhi High Court Slaps Cost of Rs 1 Lakh. Writ against Section 26(1) CCI Order.

case dismissed In a rather interesting/unforeseeable turn of events, the Ld. single judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) has come down heavily on a Petitioner seeking relief against a Section 26(1) Order passed by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’).

The writ was filed against order passed by the CCI under Section 26(1) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’), whereby the CCI had directed the Director General (‘DG’) to conduct an investigation on an allegation that the petitioner along with certain other manufacturers had contravened the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and Section 3 (3)(d) of the Act.

The petitioner’s case was solely based on the contention that the said 26(1) order did not make any specific allegation against the petitioner.

A noteworthy background on this particular Sec 26(1) matter; is that the same petitioners had earlier moved to the writ court praying for relief of inspection of files of the CCI pertaining to the said order. And the same relief was granted by the DHC.

Now coming back to exactly what irked the Ld. Single Judge into imposing such heavy costs on the petitioner. Allegedly the whole controversy circles around an apparent untrue statement submitted before the court by the petitioners on their knowledge of the DG investigation in this particular case.

During the course of arguments , the counsel on behalf on the CCI, submitted before the court, certain documents relating to DG’s questionnaire, which was apparently sent to the Petitioners back in the year 2015, and the petitioners had duly participated in the investigation by replying to the said questionnaire. Without going into any finer details I will just say that this very movement was a true table turner. Because at this juncture the Ld. Single Judge went on to the extent of noting that the false statement and false affidavit of the petitioner make for a fit case to invite proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

While not interfering with the operations of the said CCI order, and refusing to stay the DG investigation, the court while placing reliance on the Supreme Court case of Competition Commission of India v Steel Authority of India: (2010) 10 744; observed that that an order under Section 26(1) of the Act is in the nature of an administrative order and does not affect the rights of the parties. The Supreme Court had also examined the scheme of the Act and held that the legislative intent was not to permit any appeal against the order passed under Section 26(1) of the Act. Thus, an order under Section 26(1) of the Act cannot be interfered with unless it is established to be perverse or suffering from jurisdictional errors.

And accordingly the said petition was dismissed with with cost quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. What will now remain interesting to see is how this order impacts the practice being followed by the Opposite parties of challenging the CCI’s order before the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Would the attitude of not staying the operation of a 26(1) order finally mean that at last the Competition regulator will have proper time and opportunity of investigating into various alleged contraventions. OR maybe instead of an Article 226 remedy, a review/recall application before the CCI would be the appropriate way out for the Opposite Parties (Ah! btw hopefully an elaborate post discussing some thoughts on the CCI’s power of Review/Recall- soon). And maybe these investigations see the light of the day and aren’t just left hanging in the middle struggling for a decisive fate for years and years. And maybe just maybe this would be another step into the direction of having a stronger competition law regime in India.

C.C.I./T.R.A.I. and Flashbacks to Old Posts

collage-inside-CCI-TRAI-1

The recent C.C.I. – T.R.A.I. jurisdiction conflict regarding tariff investigations reminded of an old post which was written a long time ago. Those were very early days for the Competition Act and the C.C.I., but a theoretical conflict was spoken off even then. Personally, I find it surprising that it took so long for a dispute between the two to come to the fore, but without a doubt, sooner or later, it was bound to rear its head.

The old posts can be found here and here. I have nothing more to add, except factually, the C.C.I. appears to have failed to hold its own in Court when it’s jurisdiction came to be challenged regards the C.E.R.C. and the P.N.G.R.B. The P.N.G.R.B. Case was pending even at the time the previous posts were written, but subsequently fell below the radar. Surprisingly, neither of the Judgements (the C.E.R.C. Case or the P.N.G.R.B. Case) can be found. Please do post a link in the comments in case you find them or have access to them.

T.R.A.I. Consultation Paper on Differential Pricing for Data Services (A.K.A.) What Has Now Become The Fight Over “Free Basics”. (Part – II).

Now coming to the the Scheme which has been grabbing all the attention in the mass media, which includes news and paid correspondence !! Frankly, don’t remember the last time I saw the kind of advertising and media blitzkrieg which Facebook has released on the Indian public to promote “Free Basics”. The past week has been a mixture of multiple full page advertisements in all major newspapers giving us an insight into “what Network Neutrality Activists Won’t Tell You”, “A First Step Towards Digital Equality” and “Support Ganesh: Support Digital Equality”. Some of Facebook’s tactics displayed in full the desperation of the omnipresent social networking website as well as the gullibility of the Indian (atleast online) populace. Mark Zuckerberg has himself become part of the PR overdrive in order to push support for what he genuinely seems to believe should be the next big leap in connectivity in India.

Now lets get two facts straight at the very outset. There is NO DIFFERENCE between “Free Basics” and “Internet,org”. “Internet.org” was a failure because it generated too much unexpected negative publicity for Facebook and the websites/organisations joining the initiative. This led to most of them opting out of the service, which is why Facebook decided to re-christen the programme and to push it through this time they decided to also launch the “Free basics – Digital Equality” campaign in order to generate some public support for the Scheme. So far, it has been an expensive campaign with little to show for it, except for a lot (allegedly 3.2 million as per facebook itself) of virtual verbatim blind click mails and signatures which Facebook claims is the “support” they have received from the Indian online community. [UPDATE: The T.R.A.I. has now stated that it considers these mails/signatures as a valueless opinion poll and are not an adequate response to the questions framed by it.] Secondly, it would be most unfair to not acknowledge the fact that “Free Basics” has the potential to be beneficial to the citizens of India, especially the unconnected parts of the country. However, as I outline below, the Scheme as it’s terms and conditions stand today, are more harmful for internet connectivity in the Country than the ancillary benefits which may accrue.

FACEBOOK CONTROLS EVERYTHING ON FREE BASICS/INTERNET.ORG

It is Facebook which acts as a guardian of the gate who will decide who enters the Free Basics platform and who doesn’t. Frankly, I am not comfortable with one entity exercising such overarching controls over a programme which it aims to spread itself throughout the country, and further throughout the world. Make no mistake, philanthropy aside, there are two major reasons why Facebook actively pursues “Internet.org/Free Basics”:- One, more eyeballs for the advertisements generated on its website as new users sign into Facebook. Second, for the shear amount of data it will generate for analysis through its user-base. Facebook is at the end of the day a business and while it is natural for a business to want to expand its customer base and generate higher revenues/profits, this cannot come at a cost of taking advantage of an individuals lack of literacy or understanding of how expansive the internet really is and attempt to keep him or her confined to select websites which have “conformed” to the standards set by Facebook. In simple terms, Facebook has no right to act as a hand holding teacher and “guide” people through a particular path. People must be allowed to understand that the internet is more than what they will see through “Free Basics” and choose for themselves what they wish to do or see on it, whether it be researching on new farming techniques or even be as voyeuristic as watching porn. Don’t get me wrong. Am sure the “Ganesh” in the Full page newspaper ads must have genuinely benefited, but did he have any idea that what he saw was just perhaps two percent of the accessible internet ??

Let me substantiate this with a real life example of what is happening in poorer parts of the world. Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet !! A research survey, with a special focus on Indonesia and Nigeria where surveys were carried out, displays how people were not aware about the internet, but yet used to directly access Facebook, to the extent that in opinion polls a higher percentage would state that they had accessed Facebook, but a lower percentage would state that they had accessed the internet !! And do note, the article discussing the findings is dated 9th February, 2015 and states that the trends were noticed three years ago, when “Internet.org” was merely a concept in discussion and roll out had not even started. Imagine what internet connectivity could become with “Internet.org/Free Basics” implementation at its peak ?!?!

THE PROBLEM IS NOT PRESENT ABUSE. IT IS POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE

As of now, Facebook has stated that it has never rejected an Application which fulfill’s the qualifying parameters for developers on “Internet.org/Free Basics”. That’s fine for now, but what about the future?? Is Facebook willing to give a commitment that the “parameters” will always be broad and will never be to the detriment of a genuinely useful Application for the people?? No it won’t, not because it may or may not want to, but because it can’t !! The engineers at Facebook are not oracles to see the future, and what can be good or not got good or worthy or not worthy to be accessed by the Indian internet community cannot be subject to parameters laid down at a single given point of time, no matter how broad they may be. This will always be subject to the ever changing values of any given society and furthermore, to the ever important evolution of technology which in today’s furiously paced world is not just extremely hard, but downright impossible to predict. Anybody could come up with a technology or programme to give Facebook a run for its money. Can Facebook give an absolute guarantee in writing that such an Application/Programme would be allowed on Free basics?? I highly doubt it. (You can already see a potential for such abuse relating to an upstart Facebook rival “Tsu.co”)

One look at the Reliance Free Basics website for details on the websites which as of today on the platform shows that only thirty one websites/Applications are part of the Free services available under “Free Basics”. The only social networking websites, no guesses required here, are Facebook and Facebook Messenger. Over and above this, the only search portal was “Bing”, the only Jobs portal was “BabaJob” (I hadn’t even heard or read of them before seeing them here) and the only shopping website was “OLX”. The result is a potentially serious anti-competitive scenario over the internet resulting

THE INTERNET IS NOT A BUSINESS.

David Kirkpatrick, in a Linkedin Pulse Blog Post, is one of the few who has come out in defence of Facebook/Free Basics. He opined a marxist argument questioning in bold words “Do all these elite and generally upper-class and affluent Indian pundits, professors and anti-corporate activists have a better way to get many millions of less-privileged Indians onto the Internet?” and further goes on declare as follows:

“But in my view Free Basics is a fine example of what many call “doing well by doing good.” There is nothing wrong with being in business. There is nothing wrong with a business trying to acquire new customers. There is nothing wrong with offering something for free that you might charge for later. And however ruefully people elsewhere sometimes view it, there’s nothing wrong with Facebook being an American company operating successfully around the world.

Do all these elite and generally upper-class and affluent Indian pundits, professors and anti-corporate activists have a better way to get many millions of less-privileged Indians onto the Internet? If they don’t, their arguments are hollow. It’s hard to understand why Facebook shouldn’t be able to subsidize new customers’ entrance into the contemporary world of information power. For the poor, the opponents’ arguments add up to literally nothing. That’s what those people would get without Free Basics. But then, that’s what such people have had in India for millenia.

As I have already acknowledged, I too believe that Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing his endeavour with such zeal partly due to the obvious enormous potential advantage it can generate in favour of Facebook as well as a sense of idealism and an intent to do some good. But Kirkpatrick misses the point. THE INTERNET IS NOT A BUSINESS. It is a resource. You may use the internet to build a profitable business, but one cannot be allowed to make a business of the internet itself. The internet is a resource which is first and foremost, in the custody of the State which acts as a custodian of the resource on behalf of the citizens of that State. Which is why you have spectrum auctions. The Central Government, which is the custodian and owner of all spectrum in the Country, effectively leases bandwiths in different circles to different businesses which can harness the spectrum to provide internet services and/or use the internet itself. What Free Basics aims to do is to make a business out of the Internet itself. by allowing access to some applications while denying access to others (on technical grounds, if not more nefarious reasons), it effectively seeks to control what you consider as “The Internet”. Furthermore, it is important to note that Facebook itself has acknowledged that it is open to advertisement on the Free Basics platform to generate revenue in the future.

LACK OF CONNECTIVITY IN INDIA IS BECAUSE OF LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE. NOT LACK OF FREE BASICS

The lack of connectivity in India is not because of lack of money. If a man or a woman can afford a smartphone, it’s safe to presume that he or she can also afford a 3G/4G pack along with it or be able to access wi-fi from some point, either at home or work or both. The problem of connectivity has more to with lack of infrastructure, both in rural and urban areas, and “Free Basics” does nothing to solve this. It does not help to build mobile towers or help in contributing additional spectrum for public use. All that it does is allow access to some websites for free. But what would be the point to allowing free access to websites on the internet if they cannot get the signal/bars to access the internet in the first place ?!?! If anything, it has the potential to add to the burden of the overused and under developed mobile connectivity services.

CONCLUSION

To conclude:

(R. Prasad)

Facebook may have just lost some serious love and respect in one of its biggest markets.

P.S. : HAPPY NEW YEAR. 🙂

A few Thoughts on the T.R.A.I. Consultation Paper on regulatory Framework for OTT Services

Bar & Bench recently published an Article of mine expressing my views on the T.R.A.I. “Consultation Paper On Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services” which was released on 27th March, 2015 for comments from the general public.

You can read the full article here.

Also, in other news, while Telecom Operators have had to back off on their demands in India, they may finally get their way in Europe.

There IS a Better Way to Call India: A Quick Comment On Competition Law And Advertising.

In all the chaotic hullabaloo which arose on Airtel’s VoIP Data charges issue (detailed article on the issue currently in progress), another protest which drew comparatively little attention (probably due to the substantially lesser individuals/entities it affected) was the protest by International Long distance(I.L.D.) Operators against the Company’s practice of advertising it’s own VoIP Application Airtel Talk over long distance calls. Specifically, a few seconds before connecting the call.

I am a total outsider to the precise details of the case, and the facts are also disputed (I.L.D. Operators claim the advertisement was run selectively only on those networks with whom Airtel had not entered into collaboration agreements. Airtel denies this and claims that the advertisement was played on all networks equally without any discrimination.) But it did get me thinking on the issue of Advertising in Competition Law.

Prima-facie, one would consider advertising and competition law as congruous to each other. After all, advertising is an essential part of the competitive process in any economy. If a consumer is not aware as to what goods and services are on offer and at what price they are on offer, he or she will be unable to choose between the suppliers of the goods or services, and therefore, competition between suppliers may get diminished. But in this imperfect and admittedly anti-competitive world that we live in, it never is that simple. There are two different scenarios which need to be considered while addressing the issue of advertising and competition law.:

Individual Advertising

Individual Advertising is what I referred to above, i.e., an individual entity choosing to advertise it’s products with the aim to grab market share from competitors in the same sector. This would generally not be subject to perceived anti-competitive harm. Misleading and false advertising, including comparative advertising, may be concerns, but in India they would dealt before other fora. There is however some literature which suggests that advertising paradoxically carries with it an inherent anti-competitive effect as advertising costs act as a serious barrier to the entry of new entities wishing to enter a market which is already dominated by a few relatively large competitors, especially in markets which inherently require enormous amounts to be spent in building up a brand name for the product/company. In fact, Bork has even gone so far as to state that it should be considered as a Barrier to trade !! (See Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox.)

Horizontal Agreements on Advertising

This refers to agreements among competitors in a market, and needless to say, these are a bit problematic. Any agreement among entities which restricts advertising would generally be considered as an anti-competitive agreement.

However, the reaction of the European Commission (E.C.) has been mixed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While in the case of Belgian Roofing Felt, OJ [1986] L 232/15 (later upheld on Appeal in Belasco v. Commission, [1989] ECR 2117) the Commission ruled against joint advertising which led to a uniform image of products in a market wherein individual advertising would have facilitated differentiation, and consequently competition, on the other hand, in Re CECIMO, OJ [1969] L 69/13 and UNIDI, OJ [1984] L 322/10 (later upheld on Appeal in ANCIDES v. Commission, [1987] ECR 3131), it was accepted that it is sometimes desirable to rationalise and coordinate advertising efforts while imposing certain conditions on such coordination.

Post Script: The Advertising Market

As a post script, other than the above, an important area where competition needs to be maintained is the advertising market itself. It is important that the advertising media itself should function in a competitive manner free from any anti-competitive practices, including (but not limited to) any practice which might lead to reduction of advertising space in the market. This has been affirmed in the U.S. as far back as 1951 in Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 US 143 (1951). One such allegation has already arisen before the C.C.I. is the case of Advertising Agencies Guild v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation, Case No. 35 of 2013. Though that particular Information was closed, the currently running Google Investigation before the C.C.I. involves similar issues (among others) and one will have to wait and watch for further competition law developments in this area.

Dish TV India Limited v. Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited and Others, Case No. 78 of 2013

Here’s something which came up sooner than I had expected. A D.T.H. Service Provider filed an information against several M.S.O.’s (Multiple Service Operators) alleging a collective abuse of dominance by them. The issue raised is genuine as we’ve highlighted before here, here and here.

To be frank, am disappointed with the Information. The Informant seem to have pressed for “Collective Dominance”, which every Indian competition lawyer worth his salt knows is presently not addressed in the Act and their seems to have been no elaboration on the Relevant Market (Though not sure about this one. Only have access to the Order and not to the copy of the Information itself.) Furthermore, there seems to have been no attempt to build a case under Section 3. Needless to say, the Information was dismissed without a submission to the D.G. for an investigation. At the same time, it is surprising that the C.C.I. chose to dismiss this straightaway, since there already exists a T.R.A.I. Consultation Paper on this issue. In case it was worried about a regulatory conflict, it should have clearly stated so in the Order.

Interestingly, D.T.H. Service Providers are also facing scrutiny under the Competition Act. An Information against TATA Sky was dismissed in 2011, but the same as been appealed against and is presently pending before the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

T.R.A.I. Releases Recommendations On “Monopoly/Market dominance in Cable T.V. services”

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (T.R.A.I.), as per a newspaper report, has released it’s recommendations on the Monopoly and Market Dominance in the cable T.V. Sector. The document has not as yet been uploaded on the T.R.A.I. Website, so will post a link whenever it’s available, and if required, may even comment upon it.

In the meantime, you can read our comments on the issue here and here. (Long story on the why they are on different blogs.)

Update: Click here for the recommendations.

A quick reading gives the following impression:

1. Overall, it is a well drafted and well researched Recommendation Paper.

2. It agrees with our reasoning that the particular state should be considered as the relevant market.

3. The Authority recommends that market dominance should be determined based on market share in terms of the number of active subscribers of M.S.O.’s in the relevant market and that for measuring the level of competition or market concentration in a relevant market, the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (H.H.I.) should be used. I have already outlined by disagreements with this method in the previous posts.

4. The Paper has favoured the T.R.A.I. to look into mergers and acquisitions in the sector. This is obviously debatable, as has been noted in the Paper itself, and will most likely lead to some initial conflict and requiring clarification. And what doesn’t help is the fact that the Recommendations are based on definitions given under the Competition Act, 2002.

A Comment on the T.R.A.I. Consultation Paper on “Monopoly/Market dominance in Cable TV services” Part – II

Part II of my comments on the T.R.A.I. Consultation paper on “Monopoly/Market dominance in Cable TV services” can be found on the India Law and Technology Blog

Both posts were infact, initially supposed to be on the I.L.T.B., but unfortunately, due to a communication gap between Apar (the founder of the Blog) and me, I ended up putting the first part here.

Click here to see the post.