CCI Clears Flipkart, Others of Unfair Biz Practice Charges

Published: 06th May 2015 06:00 AM  |   Last Updated: 06th May 2015 05:44 AM   |  A+A-

NEW DELHI: In a relief for e-tailers, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has rejected allegations of unfair business practices as it did not find prima facie evidence of violations.

Players who were made part of this suit include e-commerce players namely Flipkart, Snapdeal, Amazon, Jabong and Myntra. These players were also dragged to court last month.

CCI Clears Flipkart.jpgThe complaints were filed against Flipkart India Pvt Ltd, Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd (parent firm of Snapdeal), Xerion Retail Pvt Ltd (Jabong), Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd and Vector E-commerce Pvt Ltd (Myntra), citing violation of competition norms by indulging in cartelisation or by abusing their dominant position. It was also alleged that these websites and product sellers entered into exclusive agreements to sell products exclusively on select portals.

“...The Commission is of the prima facie view that no case of contravention of the provisions of either section 3 or section 4 of the Act is made out against the opposite parties,” it said.

With regard to exclusive agreements, the CCI said such pacts need not result in appreciable adverse effect on competition.

“It does not seem that such arrangements create any entry barrier for new entrants. It seems very unlikely that an exclusive arrangement between a manufacturer and an e-portal will create any entry barrier as most of the products, which are illustrated in the information to be sold through exclusive e-partners in the information to be sold through exclusive e-partners (OPs) face competitive constraints,” the order said.

Agreeing with the contention of the opposite parties, CCI said every product can’t be taken as a relevant market in itself.

“Irrespective of whether we consider e-portal market as a separate relevant product market or as a sub-segment of the market for distribution, none of the opposite parties seems to be individually dominant...There are several players in the online retail market, which have been arrayed as opposite parties in the present case, offering similar facilities to their customers,” it  said.

The regulator said it does not consider it necessary to go into the question of abuse of dominance by the opposite parties.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp