Buyer’s Cartels: A Concern For Competition Law


There is a wide connotation to the word “cartel.” The interpretation adopted by a majority of jurists and legislatures suggests that the word must be understood in the true spirit of competition law, which is to promote healthy competition in a free and fair market. However, reality begs to differ, with the word having acquired a negative connotation over the years, and has now come to mean unfair and unethical collusion in a market.

competition lawA buyers’ cartel is a group of purchasers who mutually agree to remove the competition from the relevant market by fixing prices or to otherwise influence the behavior of a supplier. Such agreements could occur amongst buyers either at the end-consumer stage or at any other level of production. Although cartelization among sellers has been called a per se violation under the Competition Act, 2002, (2002 Act), cartelization among buyers, however, presents itself to legislators as fairly complex.

In buyer’s cartels, buyers can sell by colluding in markets with a lesser probability of the presence of seller’s cartels. Such a collaboration amongst buyers could eventually reduce the overall market production. The downstream market might be affected by a major drop in output by lowering the volume of production generated and higher pricing for the rest of the production chain. A lack or absence of a regulatory regime can therefore pose a serious threat to a free and fair market, which is the very essence of competition law.


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) fails to recognize the buyer’s perspective under the meaning of “trade” as given under Section 2(x) of the 2002 Act. This provision specifically conforms with the production, distribution, supply, control, or storage of commodities. In the case of XYZ v. Indian Oil Corporation, the CCI ruled that buyer’s cartels cannot be considered equal to seller’s cartels, and hence, the former does not hold any legal status.

In the United States, Courts recognize buyer’s cartels to be anti-competitive, and it is illegal to enter into such agreements. However, the law in India provides the Court with the ability to decipher the laws in a way that it can include the model of buyer’s cartels, but there are no express legal provisions in this matter. As a result, the need for amending the current law to accommodate this concept is urgent.

Although the 2002 Act does not include the term “buyer”, it has been reasonably interpreted that the legislative goal is to include buyer’s cartels; the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements are broad enough to extend to buyer’s cartels as well. The Competition Law Review Committee (the Committee)recently made suggestions for including various types of cartels, including buyer’s cartels into the Indian competition law.


Since the implementation and expansion of the Indian competition law, there has been a wide increase in buyer’s powers, and the thriving performance of the Indian market has raised concerns in the economy. The Act was enacted particularly to introduce better policies in dealing with the growing concern of anti-competitive agreements, but it was modified and superseded from the MRTP Act since it was creating inefficiency, and cost time, money, and effort as firms came up with multiple escape routes to supervise market forces.

It is important to mention here that the legislature overlooked the concept of buyer’s cartel in the Indian competition law, and instead concentrated on seller-oriented cartels to discover anti-competitive arrangements that fall within the scope of cartels. As a result, the Draft Competition Amendment Bill, 2020 (Amendment Bill)was introduced that included the concept of buyer’s cartels under cartels in the Indian competition law.

In the Indian market, buyer’s groups are distinct from buyer’s cartels, and it is prima facie not unlawful; the differences between them are minimal. In theory, buyer’s cartels are established for the sole purpose of allocating, associating, and using buyers’ powers to control and influence market competition, mainly by overpowering sellers. However, Indian Courts face difficulties in the interpretation of “buyers” while also carefully reviewing the present definition and provision of a cartel under the Act, which only covers manufacturers, dealers, traders, and service providers.


The recognition of buyer’s cartels adapts the existing law to the truths about the Indian competitive regime and affiliates it with the statutory concept of protecting sellers and their interests against monopolistic practices. Further, it restores the required stability in the law by safeguarding market players and participants, preventing incentive distortion and misallocation of economic prizes, and preserving the market system.

There has always been concern and speculation over the formation of buyer’s cartels, and its immense threat to the Indian competition regime. In recent times, there has risen a need to bring these arrangements to the knowledge of sellers, as they have the capacity to force sellers to lower prices and expand output. The suggestions in the Bill aim to assist Courts in gaining a better understanding of buyer’s cartels, and their threat to the Indian competitive market, while also successfully promoting healthy competition within the country.

It is also pertinent to point out that the CCI’s opinion on instances pertaining to buyer’s cartels is concerning because they present a severe threat to the Indian competition regime. It must also be noted that the recommendation under the Bill to include a separate definition for buyer’s cartel or to amend the existing provision to include the term, “buyers” under the Act is a significant start towards limiting the existence of buyer’s cartels in Indian markets. Over the years, the CCI has judged and penalized cartels for causing an appreciable adverse on competition (AAEC) in the Indian market.


The safeguarding of buyer groups, which might deliberately or unintentionally present a challenge to the competitive market by manipulating the supply and demand curves, has always been a problem. Without a detailed analysis, in its current form, the Bill has the potential to reduce the buyer’s cartel incentives by punishing them for acting against the seller’s interests. As a result, it is recommended that further improvements are made to the Bill or the confusion regarding such cartels would continue for a long time.

Conclusively, the author of this article personally recommends that the CCI consider the following aspects to assess buyer’s cartel:

  • Determine whether the buyers have enough power in the market to control prices lower than the reasonable level, or to distort production for market players, including other consumers.
  • Determine whether the buyers have exercised and abused such power.
  • Determine if the abuse of such power proves a direct threat to competition and is against the Preamble of the Act.

Author: Madhumitha Ravindran – a student of  Symbiosis Law School (Hyderabad), currently an intern  at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email

Leave a Reply



  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010