Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consumer Law
Bharti Airtel vs
Reliance Jio Predatory
Pricing Case
Introduction
The Competition Act
(1) The Commission may investigate any alleged violation of the provisions of sub-
Section 19(1)(a) in the
section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 on its own initiative or on
01
Competition Act, 2002 (a) receipt of a complaint from any person, consumer, or trade group, accompanied by
such charge as may be set by rules.
Section 4(2)(e) in the (e) takes advantage of its dominant position in one relevant market to enter or protect
03
Competition Act, 2002 another relevant market.
Case Facts
Bharti Airtel vs Reliance Jio
Bharti Airtel filed a complaint against Reliance Jio where it contended that through these free services Reliance Jio is providing to the
users, it is engaging in predatory pricing in violation of section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Competition Act
01 02 03 04 05
As of 31st December, Announced ‘Jio Welcome These free services Bharti Airtel has alleged According to Airtel, this
2016, Jio has subscriber Offer’ which offered were offered that Reliance Jio and RIL agreement has a
base of 72.4 million, data, voice, video and notwithstanding the have formed an alliance significant negative
making it India’s top bouquet full of Jio regulatory Under which, Jio can impact on competition
carrier by mobile applications and content requirement of ‘calling continue to provide below and falls firmly beyond
broadband user base, to the subscribers free of party pays’ cost services that are the scope of mischief
surpassing Airtel cost predatory in nature forbidden under Section
3(1) of the Act
Brief Judgement
No Prima Facie Jio not a dominant Relevant Product Relevant Geographical
Evidence against Jio player with < 7% share Market ‘Wireless Market ‘22
violating Section in any of the 22 Telecommunication Telecommunication
4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(e) telecommunication Services’ Circles in India’
circles
Free Services not anti- Jio’s short term RIL’s investment into Airtel has the highest
competitive as not business strategy not Jio is not a power abuse share in the most
provided by a dominant anti-competitive against as RIL does not provide efficient spectrum band,
player established players telecom services i.e., 1800 MHz
Recommendations and Suggestions
The relevant product and The definition of dominant The informant should CCI should allow the use of
position should be changed, have collected sufficient such promotional offers
relevant geographic market evidence against Jio
clearly Jio is a dominant only for a limited time
definition should not have been player in this case before approaching CCI period
changed by CCI
CCI concluded that mere provision of services at free of cost
by itself cannot be termed as Anti-Competitive unless
evidenced by a dominant enterprise
2
The law considers predatory pricing out of question with out