CCI notifies new definitions to curb predatory pricing

In a further bid to check predatory pricing and ensure fair competition, the Competition Commission of India has notified new definitions for various costs it will use to judge whether a price charged by a company for a product or service is predatory or not.
According to the Competition Act 2002, predatory pricing is where a good or service is priced below its cost — which is to be determined through regulations like the one just issued — with the aim to reduce competition and eliminate competitors.
In February, the CCI had released a draft notification and had called for stakeholder comments. It is after reviewing these comments and incorporating some of the changes suggested that the final version has been notified.
According to the latest notification, the cost of a good or service would be assumed to be its 'average variable cost', which is the total variable cost divided by total output during a particular period. Here, the total variable cost refers to the total cost (including everything that goes into the production of that good or service) minus the fixed cost and fixed overheads attributable to the product.
However, in line with one of the stakeholder comments, the CCI decided to avoid using sector-specific definitions of cost, and instead has decided to view them on a case-by-case basis.
'The Cost Regulations 2025 establish a sector-agnostic, cost-based framework that is flexible and adaptable to various industries, including the digital economy,' the CCI said in a supplementary note issued along with the notification. 'Therefore, rather than prescribing sector-specific metrics, the framework allows for case-by-case assessment, enabling the Commission to consider the unique features and evolving dynamics of digital markets when evaluating alleged predatory conduct.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

8 hours ago

• Business Standard

Consumer protection: Insurer held liable for delay in claim settlement

Ramesh Kanji Cham owned a motor vessel named 'Miraj', which he used in theshipping business to transport materials. Cham insured the boat with National Insurance from February 8, 1997, to February 7, 1998. On May 11, 1997, the vessel, which was docked at Abra Berth near Deira in Dubai Creek, keeled over on its left side. Upon learning about the mishap, Cham immediately notified the insurer and later submitted all the requisite documents. He registered a Marine Hull claim for DHS 7.56 lakh (about ₹73 lakh). After five years of protracted correspondence, the insurer offered to pay only ₹21.44 lakh. Cham requested that this amount be released as an interim payment and sought reimbursement of the full claim of ₹73 lakh. Upon receiving the ₹21.44 lakh, he protested against the shortfall and requested a detailed computation and an explanation for the deduction. The insurer responded that it had re-examined the claim and had settled it in accordance with the surveyor's assessment. Aggrieved, Cham approached the Gujarat State Commission, alleging that the remaining ₹52 lakh had been wrongly withheld by adopting unfair trade practices. He stated that although he had protested against the shortfall in payment, he had signed the discharge voucher due to financial constraints. The insurer contended that the survey was conducted by Richards Hogg Lindley of Liverpool, UK, with utmost professionalism, fairness and diligence, and that Cham had accepted the payment in full and final settlement. It argued that the complaint was therefore not maintainable. The State Commission overruled the insurer's defence and allowed the complaint. It ordered the insurer to pay the balance claim along with 6 per cent interest and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The insurer appealed against the order. It stated that the complaint was not maintainable as Cham had accepted the amount in full and final settlement by signing the discharge voucher voluntarily and without any coercion. It also claimed that the short payment was justified on the grounds of under-insurance. The National Commission observed that the loss had been assessed by the surveyor and that the International Maritime Bureau had also conducted an investigation. It identified three key issues for adjudication: whether there was undue delay in the settlement of the claim; whether the execution of the discharge voucher could be considered voluntary and binding on the insured; and whether the insured was entitled to the balance claim amount. The Commission found that the insurer had taken five and a half years to assess the loss, which constituted a deficiency in service and caused financial distress. Further, since Cham had accepted the settlement under protest, the complaint was deemed maintainable. Regarding the balance claim, the Commission stated that the survey report would be binding unless proven to be arbitrary. As there was no indication of any flaw in the report, it concluded that the claim had been properly settled. However, it held that Cham was entitled to compensation for the delay in settlement. Accordingly, in its order dated May 21, 2025, the Commission directed the insurer to pay interest at 9 per cent per annum from November 11, 1997 (six months after the incident) to October 31, 2002 (the date of payment of the claim). In case of delay in payment, the amount would carry 12 per cent interest. Additionally, ₹60,000 was awarded as litigation costs.

Time of India

a day ago

• Time of India

Google Proposes Major Changes to Search Results to Avoid EU Antitrust Fine, ET HospitalityWorld

Alphabet's Google has proposed more changes to its search results to better showcase rivals in a bid to stave off a possible hefty EU antitrust fine, according to documents seen by Reuters. Google's latest proposal came three months after the European Commission charged the U.S. tech giant with favouring its own services such as Google Shopping, Google Hotels and Google Flights over rivals in breach of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The landmark DMA sets out a list of dos and don'ts for Big Tech aimed at reining in their power and giving rivals more room to compete and consumers more choices. Under Google's new proposal a vertical search service (VSS) selected on objective and non-discriminatory criteria would get its own box at the top of the search page with the same format, information and features as Google's, the document said. Advt The box would contain three direct links picked by the VSS, to hotels, airlines, restaurants and VSS, which are specialised search engines within Google, would be ranked below but without a box unless users click on them."We do not agree with the (Commission's) preliminary findings' position but, on a without prejudice basis, we want to find a workable solution to resolve the present proceedings," the documents sent by both Google and the Commission to the rivals rivals will provide feedback at a July 8 meeting called by the Commission. A number of rivals, who did not want to be named ahead of the meeting, told Reuters that the changes still do not go far enough to ensure a level playing field.(Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; Editing by Susan Fenton Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals. Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox. All about ETHospitalityWorld industry right on your smartphone! Download the ETHospitalityWorld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.

The Hindu

2 days ago

• The Hindu

Industries demand reduction in power tariff as consumer price index registers a decline

With the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for April 2025 declining compared with last April, industries in Coimbatore are demanding that the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation (TNPDCL) retain the electricity tariff for industries at the same level or reduce it. Based on the multi-year tariff revision introduced in 2022, industries will see 6% increase in power tariff from July 1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) order says that the control period under the multi-year tariff frame work shall be five years. The year preceding the first year of the control period shall be the base year where the Commission desires to fix multi year tariff. A formula based on Consumers' Price lndex (wholesale Price lndex (or) a quantum (Percentage / value) required to meet the Aggregate Revenue Requirement of the licensee shall be prescribed. Industry sources here said the All India Consumer Price Index for April 2025 is 3.48 % as against 4.83 % in April 2024. Since there is a decline in the CPI, the Commission and the TNPDCL should not implement the annual 6 % annual hike in tariff this year. They urged the TNERC also to issue orders to either retain the tariff or reduce it. Electricity consultants said if the CPI has reduced in April this year, the TNPDCL and the TNERC should not hike the tariff from July 1.