News Ticker

Charges of Unfair Business Practices against Flipkart, Snapdeal, etc. rejected by CCI

The allegations levelled against the five Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jabong, Amazon, and Myntra, being major retailers of e-commerce, for unfair business practices were rejected the Competition Commission of India- CCI due to non-availability of any prima facie evidence of Violations.

The complaints were filed against Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. (running, Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. (running Amazon), Xerion Retail Pvt. Ltd. (running Jabong), Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (running Snapdeal) and Vector E-commerce Pvt. Ltd. (running Myntra).

The Commission is considering the matter of complaints as to unfair business practicing by these five e-commerce majors, from recent past few months.

In so far as the allegations against those entities are concerned, it was sought to level that an Exclusive Agreements are entered into by the E-commerce websites and product sellers for selling their products exclusively on select portals. It was seen in the recent few months that the discount sales offered by the various e-commerce majors like Flipkart and others were of Anti- competitive nature.

However, now the Completion Commission has decided that these entities are not liable for any such violations of Competition norms. It is specifically mentioned in the para-10 of the Order dated 23rd April, 2015 of Commission, that no prima facie case is made out as to any such contravention of the provisions of the concerned law, against the contesting entities.

It was specifically pointed by the Completion Commission that the exclusive agreements are need not to result in appreciably adverse effecting the Competition. While so, it is made clear that such an exclusive arrangements amongst the Manufacturer and an E-commerce major, is not seem to create any barrier on entry of new entrants. The reason show is that most of the Products face competitive constraints, which are sought to be sold out through exclusive e-partners (OPs).

The Commission mentioned in the order that the said entities being opposite parties are not separate individually dominant and though the E-portal market can be considered by it as Separate relevant product market or a Sub- segment of the market for distribution.

It was also made clear in the order itself that the Online retailing players (concerned entities) who were arrayed in the present case as an opposite parties are offering similar facilities. And it was specifically denied by the Commission that to look into the question of abuse of Dominance by the said Opposite parties, by seeming it as not necessary.

by Faim Khalilkhan Pathan.