Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal.

com

In this case, the complainant was a seller of SanDisk products, who used to sell the products through
online mode via Snapdeal. But his listed products were eventually taken off the website and Snapdeal
refused to allow him to make any sales through its portal. He was later on conveyed that SanDisk has
issued a list of its authorized agents and only such authorized agents will be allowed to sell its products
through Snapdeal, and if the complainant wanted to continue selling SanDisk products, he needs to
obtain a “No objection Certificate” from SanDisk. The commission in this case demarcated the relevant
product market based on the price and intended use of the product. It was held by the Commission that
the relevant product market in this case will be the market for small sized and portable storage devices,
as SD cards, pen drives and Micro SD Cards are substitutable.

But it also needs to be noted that there are certain reasons why such deep discounts and low prices
offered by e-tailers may not be considered as predatory pricing under certain contexts. Firstly, the e-
commerce marketplaces are not retailers but mere platforms. In Ashish Ahuja case, CCI took into
consideration the fact that Snapdeal is a mere intermediary and not engaged in selling/purchasing
products itself and hence it cannot be declared as dominant player in the relevant market for portable
storage devices(pen drives, SD Memory Cards and Micro SD Cards).274 Although this argument is
restricted to marketplaces, it clarified clear that no case of predatory pricing can be sustained against
the e-commerce giants until the products are offered by different distributors on their platform.

https://allindialegalforum.in/2021/04/07/ahuja-v-snapdeal-decoding-the-e-commerce-anomaly/

Mohit Manglani v. Flipkart and others

In this case, the informed had filed complaint against 5 major e-commerce players - Flipkart, Amazon,
Jasper Infotech, Vector E-commerce and Xerion Retail, alleging anti-competitive conduct, like exclusive
supply and distribution agreements. It was alleged that these online portals were entering into exclusive
agreements with regard to sale of certain products sold exclusively on their website. Such agreements
provided for exclusion of the sale of such products on any other e-commerce website as well as any
brick and mortar shop. This allowed the particular website to control the supply, impose conditions,
affect the price and ultimately cause an appreciable adverse effect (AAEC) on competition. The
complainant referred to an exclusive sale agreement between Flipkart and Rupa Publications regarding
the sale of Chetan Bhagat’s Novel “Half Girlfriend.” It was also alleged that due to such agreements,
these websites had acquired a “product specific monopoly” i.e. 100% dominance in the relevant market
of that product. In this case, the informant argued that the relevant market in this case would be the
novel “Half girlfriend” i.e. the specific product in question which was put on sale exclusively on the
online marketplace. The CCI did not agree with the contention of the informant and said that the
relevant market could not be product specific i.e. every product can’t be said to be a relevant market in
itself, as it will also include its substitutes. It also commented that, “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 OPs seems to be individually dominant.”

Deepak Verma v. Clues Network Pvt. Ltd

In this case, the complaint was filed against some e-commerce companies ( eBay,Amazon, Yepme,
Snapdeal, etc. ) and certain sellers on such websites (Cloudtail, Shree Govind Store, B.R.Mart, etc)
alleging deficiency in products and services provided by them. Use of unfair and restrictive trade
practices to increase their business, was also alleged in the complaint. In this case, the Commission
referred to e-commerce as, “a wide range of online business activities for sale and purchase of products
and services”. With regard to the impugned sellers on e-commerce website, the Commission further
notes that there are a number of competitors selling similar goods and services (online and offline).
Hence, the buyers are not dependent on the aforesaid sellers. In view of above, the Commission opines
that none of the OPs are in the dominant position in the market. In the absence of dominance, the
question of abuse does not arise.