Where distribution of channels and their pricing by broadcasters/aggregators was totally regulated by TRAI Regulations and market share of joint venture (JV) formed by opposite parties (‘OPs’), i.e., channel owners, was only 10 per cent, conduct of OPs was not anti-competitive
In the instant case, informant-subscriber had filed information under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) against opposite parties (‘OPs’), i.e., Zee and Star channels, alleging that proposed JV of OPs in sale and distribution of channels would strengthen their position by adversely affecting competition in relevant market. According to informant, players in market would suffer due to undue advantage available to JV and consumer’s interest would suffer as consumers would be deprived of prices available in market and also would not be able to get competitive rates for channels subscribed to by them.
The Commission held as under:
1) Due to TRAI Regulations distribution of channels and their pricing by broadcasters/aggregators are totally regulated and, therefore, allegations that market power of JV would affect ability of Multi System Operators in bargaining were not substantiated ;
2) OPs could not be said to have violated section 3(3) of the Act in forming a JV. Since market share of JV formed by OPs was 10 per cent only and JV had not affected operations of other broadcasters or aggregators in any way, JV formed by OPs was not a dominant player in relevant market of services of aggregating and distribution of TV channels in case of Multi-system operators, Direct to Home Operators and Internet Protocol Television Operators in India and, therefore, there was no abuse of dominant position. Thus, opposite parties had not contravened provisions of sections 3(3) and 4 of the Act and proceedings in instant case were to be closed - Yogesh Ganeshlaji Somani v. Zee Turner Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 2 (CCI)
In the instant case, informant-subscriber had filed information under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) against opposite parties (‘OPs’), i.e., Zee and Star channels, alleging that proposed JV of OPs in sale and distribution of channels would strengthen their position by adversely affecting competition in relevant market. According to informant, players in market would suffer due to undue advantage available to JV and consumer’s interest would suffer as consumers would be deprived of prices available in market and also would not be able to get competitive rates for channels subscribed to by them.
The Commission held as under:
1) Due to TRAI Regulations distribution of channels and their pricing by broadcasters/aggregators are totally regulated and, therefore, allegations that market power of JV would affect ability of Multi System Operators in bargaining were not substantiated ;
2) OPs could not be said to have violated section 3(3) of the Act in forming a JV. Since market share of JV formed by OPs was 10 per cent only and JV had not affected operations of other broadcasters or aggregators in any way, JV formed by OPs was not a dominant player in relevant market of services of aggregating and distribution of TV channels in case of Multi-system operators, Direct to Home Operators and Internet Protocol Television Operators in India and, therefore, there was no abuse of dominant position. Thus, opposite parties had not contravened provisions of sections 3(3) and 4 of the Act and proceedings in instant case were to be closed - Yogesh Ganeshlaji Somani v. Zee Turner Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 2 (CCI)
No comments:
Post a Comment