Recently, the Competition Commission of India (C.C.I) has dismissed a case filed in Unilazer Ventures Private Limited v. P.V.R. Ltd. and others 24-07-2019 in which the Informant made the following main allegations:
- That lavish multiplexes colluded charge higher virtual print fee (V.P.F) from Indian film producers/distributor than Hollywood producers/distributors
- That multiplexes play longer duration advertisements to make profits, as a result of which the efforts of the producer in curtailing the length of the film are disrupted
- That the multiplex owners being in a position of strength unilaterally prescribed terms of revenue sharing with the producers/distributors.
But the CCI dismissed the aforesaid allegations on the following grounds:
- That there was no evidence of any anti-competitive agreement amongst the multiplex owners leading to imposition of common V.P.F on Indian producers.
- That the allegation pertaining to longer duration of advertisements does not fall under the ambit of the Competition Act 2002 as amended thereof (the Act).
- That the revenue sharing arrangement between producers and multiplex owners was made with mutual consent and due deliberations.
Thus, the C.C.I held that the multiplex owners were not liable for carrying out any anti-competitive practices in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The Indian Lawyer