Antitrust Issues In Entertainment And Film Industry (Part 2)

In the last segment, we analysed how section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter the Act) works in the entertainment industry, and how it can be used. In this part, we’ll look at how section 4 of the Act works in the entertainment business. Section 4 of the Act talks about people who use their power for their own gain. Market domination doesn’t have a single or universally accepted definition. However, it is often defined as the “ability of a company to take a strategic position in advance that limits the options available to competitors.” They can use this advantage by making a credible promise that scares off their rivals and limits the scope of their actions, which gives them an advantage. As defined by the Act, the company is in a position where it can run its own business, stop effective competition in the market it’s in, and harm customers or competitors by standardising industry terms.

An assessment of dominance by an enterprise would only be done in the market where the business is in. This is because the scope of dominance is not unlimited and is limited by product or geography. To figure out if a company is abusing its power, one first needs to know the market where the company is working. This is the first step in testing dominance. The relevant market is defined in Section 2 (r) of the Act. The CCI has the power to choose what kind of market the CCI wants to talk about. To figure out if a market is relevant, it needs to be seen that there is a place where people switch out products or services because they have similar characteristics, prices, and use.[i]A geographic market needs to have an area where goods and services are sold together distinctly, and this area should be very different from its next-door area. The way the commission defines the relevant market directly affects how the firm is judged as having too much power.

To understand the concept in a deeper sense lets analyse the case laws set forth by the competition authorities.

The applicability of the test of dominance is secondary in film industry instances; what matters most is whether the Associations to which the dominant cases are to be applied are enterprises or not within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Competition Act. This part would establish the legal status of associations as defined by the Commission and it would then conduct an investigation of enterprise dominance statutory provisions to be interpreted.

In the matter of Reliance Big Entertainmentvs. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce(KFCCC)[ii], the association discriminated in the showing of Kannada and non-Kannada films, with more preference given to Kannada films. It’s a matter of first and foremost promoting local art and culture and secondly that big budget films like Bollywood and Hollywood have market power and thus control the share of the market. Third is the fact that Kannada films are only shown within Karnataka or possibly some other states in South India, whereas Bollywood movies are universally popular. That is why the latter should be restricted in Karnataka.

Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act allow associations to limit the availability of services in the market, which may be done for cultural reasons, but this cannot be done at the expense of others. Discrimination based on caste, creed, or language is explicitly prohibited by India’s Constitution.[iii] Rather than restricting other market participants in the sector, the group should focus more on improving film quality, etc.

The digital rights to a movie are another point of contention between the organisation and its members. Due to the short life span of movies in cinemas, another method of making money is by broadcasting the movie on television.

For DTH satellite rights, there is no defined hold back term for abuse of dominance. For some cases, this term is limited to three months, while in other cases it is limited to six months[iv], and in still other cases it is limited to five years[v]. As a result, filmmakers often rush to release their pictures ahead of schedule, and the Commission responds by blocking the release of any future films from the defaulting producer, thereby denying them market access. Considering the interests of all stakeholders, an appropriate period of time should be determined and proposed in the latter stages of this project.

Looking at another case, this time overseas, The Producers Guild of America and the Multiplex Association of America are at odds, and this is the first time that a quarrel has arisen between the two organisations. Both the informant and the opposing party are made up of members of the multiplex exhibitors’ association. The association of film producers claims that the Multiplex Association is able to refuse them access to the multiplexes, and they claim that the Multiplex Association has a shareholding of up to 60% in the relevant product market of “Multiplex,” allowing them to dominate. However, according to DG’s findings in his report, this was not the case. Ultimately, it was determined by this panel that MAI does not possess any inherent authority and relies solely on the combined influence of its members to exercise dominance.[vi] This case is relevant because in India, there is no provision for collective dominance, unlike in the United States.[vii]

In the Ajay Devgn Films Competition Case[viii], brought by informant Ajay Devgn Films against Yash Chopra’s Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd., India’s sole privately held film studio, the film‘Jab Tak Hain Jaan’ had to be shown on Diwali in order for Yash Raj films to release ‘Ek Tha Tiger’ on Eid, a star-studded picture that was guaranteed to be hugely popular. Because of the tie-in arrangement, they alleged that there were unfair and discriminatory terms tied to the purchase of products or services.

An unspecified date led the commission to conclude that Yash Raj’s productions were not a dominant force in a relevant market at the time of its ruling. For all its fame and its track record of successful films, the production company can’t claim to be unbeatable.[ix]In some cases, essential information may not be obtained because of the need for a fast-track proceeding. Since its inception in the 1960s, Yash Raj Studios has been a major player in the Indian entertainment industry, according to the company’s website. One of India’s most prestigious film libraries and some of the highest grossing movies in the industry are only some of the company’s achievements since its founding in 1970. Because of its market domination and economic power, it is possible to say that the corporation is in a dominant position under the Competition Act.


  1. When these associations were created, there was no satellite DTH technology and the prints of the movies had to be distributed region-by-region. This should be taken into consideration. All of this is now handled electronically. Considering the current circumstances, it is the author’s belief that the regulations should be adapted and updated accordingly.
  2. Interim relief is sought in the majority of film cases because the films must be released on time, or else the producers will suffer a significant financial loss. Investigations into such cases are frequently incomplete or inaccurate. As a result, it has to be said that we require a universally applicable code.
  3. In the Indian Competition cases, even though associations were regulating the sector, they were able to avoid section 4 i.e. abuse of power since they were not ‘enterprises’ within the section.
  4. A film release ban is imposed by associations in order to recoup debts owed by defaulters and enhance the well-being of its members. It takes a long time to recover from routine judicial hearings. The associations are doing a wonderful job in this regard, as well. However, the problem is that such actions lack legal grounding. In such cases, the CCI’s interference gives the defaulters a free pass. Researchers say that before enabling the film’s defaulters to continue with its release, CCI should pay the debts that they owe them.


In the examples cited in this work, the Commission determined that associations are not enterprises under section 2(h) of the Competition Act because they do not engage in economic activity. As a result, they are not covered by section 4 of the Act. However, the Commission highlighted that because film associations are associations of individuals or enterprises, their actions would fall within section 3 of the Act, as they restrict the supply of films. But the Commission has not properly defined the business and functions of the associations’ members. The rationale for this is that certain associations are a federation of distributors, producers, and exhibitors, and section 3 applies to associations that conduct comparable activity. This, in this author’s opinion, should be re-examined by the Commission. A violation of competition law will be interpreted as a violation of free trade. It has a wide range of applicability and therefore it is highly suitable to the activities of film associations and can be made applicable subject to the facts of the case.

Author: Amey Jadhav – an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email


[i] Section 2(t), Competition Act, 2002.

[ii] 2012CompLR269(CCI).

[iii] Art. 15, Constitution on India, 1950.

[iv] Rules, Motion pictures Association, Delhi

[v] Rules, Bihar and Jharkhand Motion pictures Association.

[vi] Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C §1,(1890)

[vii] Film & Television Producers Guild of India Against Multiplex Association of India (MAI), Mumbai, PVR Ltd, Inox Leisure Limited, Fame India Ltd, Reliance Media Works Ltd, Cinemax India Ltd. , Fun Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., HDIL Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., DT Cinemas, Movietime Cineplex Pvt. Ltd., Satyam Cineplexes Ltd., SRS Entertainment & Retail Ltd., AB Movies Pvt. Ltd., Velocity Limited, p. 88 Case no. 37/2011

[viii] Case no. 66 of 2012.

[ix] Sec. 19(4)(b), Competition Act, 2002.

Leave a Reply



  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • 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