A case brought by the All India Online Vendors Association (AIOVA), which represents more than 3,500 online sellers, complained that Flipkart was using its dominant position to favor select sellers—an argument the CCI rejected.
AIOVA’s case alleged Flipkart was not adhering to a section of India’s antitrust laws that says companies should not abuse a dominant market position through “unfair or discriminatory” pricing.
“Looking at the present market construct and structure of online marketplace platforms market in India, it does not appear that any one player in the market is commanding any dominant position at this stage of evolution of market [sic],” the Commission stated in its ruling.
Featured News
DOJ and FTC Introduce Website for Reporting Anti-Competitive Healthcare Practices
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
US Congress Advances Legislation to Compel TikTok Sale
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
UK Financial Sector Advocates Enhanced Regulatory Accountability
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Google and All 50 States Defend $700 Million Consumer Settlement
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado Enacts First Law to Protect Consumer Brainwave Data
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI