Sign up for our morning newsletter, with a “Free Read of the Day”, to experience MediaNama in a whole new way.Īrguments presented to CCI and CCI’s analysis Relevant market and dominant position Never miss out on important developments in tech policy, whether in India or across the world. Against this backdrop, the CCI order offers some reprieve to distributors by establishing that manufacturers can choose to not directly deal with e-commerce platforms. However, e-commerce platforms have argued that consumers benefit from their practice as they can find products at a lower price and that the Competition Act disallows manufacturers from refusing to deal with downstream players. As a result, distributor bodies have had frequent run-ins with manufacturers demanding that they are not bypassed. Why does this matter? Distributors have been some of the most adversely affected by the growth of e-commerce as platforms prefer to directly engage with manufacturers for procurement of goods, cutting the middlemen out.
Thus, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3(4) and Section 4 of the Act against Parle, and therefore, the matter be closed.” - CCI “The Commission is of the prima facie view that, in the present case, the Informant has not been able to demonstrate any exclusionary practice on behalf of Parle within the purview of the Act, which may hinder the development of a competing supply chain for the products of Parle. The Business-to-Business (B2B) e-commerce marketplace wanted to buy the popular Parle-G biscuits directly from Parle and not from distributors, but Parle refused, following which Udaan approached CCI arguing Parle’s conduct is anti-competitive.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on July 6 ruled that biscuit manufacturer Parle did not violate any competition laws by refusing to sell its products directly to Udaan.
0 kommentar(er)
