The Corporate & Commercial Law Society Blog, HNLU

Tag: CCI

  • The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

    The CCI’s Nod for Resolution Plans: The 2025 Amendment Strikes the Right Note

    BY VAISHNAV M, THIRD- YEAR STUDENT AT NUALS, KERALA

    INTRODUCTION

    The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) ensconces a mechanism known as the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) that attempts to revive the Corporate Debtor (‘CD’) through restructuring and strategic resolution of debts. With the CD managed by a Resolution Professional (‘RP’), the Resolution Applicants (‘RA’) can propose restructuring plans to resolve debts and sustain the CD as a going concern.

    Where the plan involves acquisition, merger or amalgamation (collectively, ‘Combination’), it is important that the restructuring does not distort the competition in the market. This is where merger control and the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) step in. The Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram & Ors (‘ISC’)dealt with the procedure to seek the CCI’s approval for combination during the insolvency process.

    The piece is not a general comment on the decision; instead, it aims to examine a particular point in the judgement that has not received the critical attention it deserves. That is, the particular stage at which the CCI-nod for the combination is to be obtained. This question is especially pertinent in the context of the recently introduced IBC (Amendment) Bill, 2025 (‘2025 Amendment’), which proposes to relax the timeline for the CCI’s approval for resolution plans.

    THE ISC CASE AND THE STATUS QUO

    In the ISC case, one of the RAs challenged the CIRP, citing many procedural laxities. One of the grounds was failure to seek approval of the CCI before placing the resolution plan before the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) for voting. According to Section 31(4) of the IBC, an RA has one year from the approval of the Adjudicating Authority (‘AA’) to obtain necessary clearances under other laws. But the proviso clarifies that the approval of the CCI for the combination is to be obtained before the approval of the CoC.

    Hitherto, the position was that this proviso is directory and not mandatory in nature, as laid down by the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) in Arcellor Mittal v Abhijit Guhakartha & Ors. The Supreme Court (‘SC’), in the ISC case, reversed the position by holding that the proviso is to be read literally, and treating it otherwise would render it obsolete. However, the proviso does not specify who seeks approval and at what stage before the CoC nod. In the scheme of CIRP, the stages preceding the CoC approval are:

    • Stage 1: Invitation for expression of interest from prospective RAs
    • Stage 2: Request for resolution plans from prospective RAs
    • Stage 3: Examination and confirmation of the plans by the RP
    • Stage 4: Voting by the CoC on the plans

    The SC in ISC clarified that the RA need not wait till submission of the plan to the RP before sending a notice to the CCI for approval. In effect, the approval of the CCI can be sought at any time, even in Stage 1 during the invitation for expression of interest at any point before Stage 4. The next section shall discuss the workability of the same.

    DETERMINING THE TRIGGER POINT FOR CCI NOTICE

    When to send the notice?

    According to Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, (‘the Competition Act’) an enterprise must send a notice of combination to the CCI when it executes any agreement or document for acquisition, or when the Board of Directors (‘Board’) of the enterprises involved approves the proposal for a merger or amalgamation.

    As held in ISC, an RA can send a notice to the CCI much before it submits its resolution plan to the RP. But is the requirement of an agreement or a decision for acquisition or the Board’s approval for merger met at Stages 1 and 2?

    An ‘agreement’ to acquire is a broad and liberal construct, and includes an arrangement of understanding or even an action in concert. Such an arrangement or understanding can be reflected in a formal or written form, and it need not have been formulated with the intent legal enforceability. In the case of the CIRP, the RP is tasked with managing the CD, including entering into contracts on behalf of the CD, courtesy Section 23 read with Section 20 of IBC. Resultantly, an agreement or understanding for the purpose of acquisition has to be between the RA proposing the combination on one side and the RP on the other side.

    But such an understanding or arrangement is absent at Stage 1. An agreement requires a meeting of minds of at least two parties, which is lacking when the RA is yet to share their proposal with the RP. Similarly, Stage 2 only marks a point where the RAs have prepared the plan. That does not signify an agreement as it is yet to be examined and understood by the RP.  

    At Stage 3, the RP examines the resolution plans proposed by the RAs and confirms whether they comply with the minimum essentials mandated by the law. This confirmation implies an agreement or an understanding, making Stage 3 and onwards the appropriate trigger for notice.

    Now, in the case of a merger or amalgamation, the notice is triggered only after the proposal is approved by the Board of both parties.[i]  In the case of a CD, the interim RP (‘IRP’) or the RP steps into the shoes of the management. Resultantly, the approval would have to be sought from the RP himself. Therefore, a notice for merger or amalgamation cannot be sent to the CCI before the plan is submitted to the RP and confirmed by them, which is Stage 3. So, the same conclusion follows – it is at Stage 3 that the notice is triggered.

    Who should send the notice?

    In the case of acquisition, the acquirer sends the notice.[ii] Generally, the successful RA submitting the plan acquires the target CD company, as was seen in the case of ISC. Therefore, it is the RA who is required to send the notice to the CCI. For merger or amalgamation, notice must be sent jointly by the RA and the RP.[iii]

    Suppose there are RAs intending to propose an acquisition in Stages 1 and 2, then all those RAs must send the notice to the CCI with the requisite fees,[iv] even before the plan is seen and examined by the RP. So, even RAs whose plan might not be voted in later would have to bear the cost at an early stage. Quite similarly, in the case of merger or amalgamation, the RP and the respective RA have to send the notice and pay the fees, jointly or severally.[v]Whether the RA or the RP handling the stressed CD would want to take the liability to pay the fees amid relative uncertainty is doubtful.

    WELCOMING THE 2025 AMENDMENT

    The 2025 Amendment has been appreciated for many desirable introductions, from the new ‘creditor-initiated insolvency resolution process’ to ‘group insolvency’. Clause 19(d) amends the proviso to Section 31(4), allowing the RA to obtain the CCI approval before submission to AA. So, the approval process can be deferred till the CoC votes on the plan and the Successful Resolution Applicant is identified. The minor change resolves the above-discussed problem of redundancy, while leaving room for seeking approval at an earlier stage.

    There are certain concerns regarding the amendment as well, but these can be addressed duly. One of the concerns is regarding compliance with the CIRP timeline of 330 days under Section 12 of the Code. However, 330 days is a general rule. The Court has already held, previously as well as in ISC, that the breach of the time-limit can be condoned in exceptional circumstances where any blame for such a delay cannot be attributed to any of the parties.

    In case the plan approved by the CoC is rejected by the CCI, it must be modified to address those objections. However, the successful RA cannot make any change at its own behest. So, once changes are made, the CoC must approve it again. Essentially, such a rejection need not be fatal to the CIRP, though it may elongate the process. In any case, Clause 19(b) of the 2025 Amendments allows the AA to return back the plan to the CoC for correcting any defects. What it reflects is that alterations made post first CoC approval is not doctrinally unacceptable. When CCI recommends changes, the CoC is well-equipped to accommodate it then and there. 

    Therefore, the proposed amendment to the procedure for CCI approval of the resolution plan is a pragmatic improvement as it spares the RA and the RP from the additional paperwork and costs that are characteristic of the existing position.

    CONCLUDING REMARKS

    The current position as settled in the ISC case does not gel well with reality. Even though it seems to make available a broad period for sending the notice, starting from Stage 1, it is generally not possible to send a notice until Stage 3 when the trigger for the notice under the Competition Act is activated. In rare cases with only one RA and mutual certainty as to the terms of the combination, this proposition in ISC might be of some use. Such cases are rare in the typically uncertain flow of business in the CIRP.

    The proposed change in the 2025 Amendment reflects the reality. The RAs and the RP can even wait till the CoC approval to send the notice. This improves ease of doing business and provides more leeway for the stakeholders to ensure compliance.

    [i] Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2024, Reg. 5(7).

    [ii] Id., Reg. 9(1).

    [iii] Id., Reg. 9(3).

    [iv] Id., Regs. 10, 11.

    [v] Id., Regs. 10(2), 9(3).

  • Regulatory Turf Wars Resolved: Rethinking Regulatory Boundaries

    Regulatory Turf Wars Resolved: Rethinking Regulatory Boundaries

    NITIN PRADHAN AND MAHADEV KRISHNAN, FOURTH- YEAR STUDENTS AT ARMY LAW COLLEGE, PUNE AND NLUO, ORISSA

    INTRODUCTION

    The question of jurisdiction between the sectoral regulators and the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) is not new. Since the establishment of the CCI, concerns have been raised as to whether it is possible to co-exist with specialised regulators in technologically intensive sectors. The Kerala High Court (‘Court’), in Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. CCI & Ors. recently provided some sorely needed clarity by holding that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (‘TRAI’) and the CCI play different but complementary roles.

    The Court stressed that the mandate of one of the regulators cannot be displaced by that of the other and that the interaction between the two regulators should be driven by functional harmony, rather than displacement. TRAI comes into play in the structural and technical regulation of the telecom sector, licensing, tariffs, interconnection, and service quality, which provide smooth foundations of operations. In comparison, the mandate of the CCI is to protect competition, ensure that dominance is not abused and to ensure fairness in the market. Naturally, the two spheres overlap. The decision by the Court is important in that it enhances regulatory synergy instead of turf wars and the fact that overlapping jurisdictions, despite being a challenging issue, can be harmonized by working together.

    The case raises fundamental questions about institutional balance in markets where both technical oversight and competition enforcement are indispensable. More broadly, it signals the maturing of India’s regulatory architecture, where cooperation rather than conflict may increasingly define the relationship between regulators.

    Both regulators tend to claim that they are the first responder during jurisdictional conflicts. TRAI makes such a claim when complaints are technical or regulatory-based, e.g. when complaints are about licensing or interconnection. On the contrary, CCI intervenes when the matter involves anti-competitive practice or damage to the fairness of the market, which may not be within the regulatory jurisdiction of TRAI.

    It also gained national attention in the landmark decision of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s CCI. There, the Supreme Court ruled that whenever technical issues are involved then the sectoral regulator such as TRAI must suggest an opinion before the CCI steps in, this seemed to tilt the balance towards TRAI. However, this raises an important question; can sectoral regulation and competition law operate side by side without undermining each other?

    In this article, the authors explain the different roles of TRAI and CCI and reflect upon what the Asianet v. CCI judgment means for businesses, regulators, and the future of regulatory practice in India. Aiming to shed light on a possible forward path towards a more coordinated and effective framework for addressing overlaps between sector-specific regulation and competition law.

    BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE

    The dispute started when a major Kerala-based multi-system operator (‘MSO’) called Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. (‘ADNPL’) filed a complaint with the CCI against one of the dominant broadcasters called Star India Pvt. Ltd. (‘SIPL’). ADNPL claimed that SIPL had misused its market dominance in the broadcasting service market by: (i) Granting disproportionately high discounts to a rival MSO, Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. (KCCL); (ii) Entering into “sham marketing agreements” involving unjustified payments to KCCL; and (iii) Effectively denying market access to ADNPL by conferring undue advantages on its competitor.

    On observing a prima facie case, the CCI issued an order of an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’). SIPL opposed the argument that the complaint was clearly within the jurisdiction of TRAI, as it involved tariffs, discounts and interconnection agreements all of which were covered in details by TRAI Act, 1997. According to SIPL, the CCI had interfered with a domain that should be left to the sectoral regulator by intervening. ADNPL responded that TRAI governs technical and structural concerns and that discriminatory pricing and sham agreements are anti-competitive practices which are well within the jurisdiction of the CCI.

    Therefore, the High Court was obliged to consider two points: whether the presence of TRAI denied the jurisdiction of CCI, and whether the Section 26(1) of the CCI direction to investigate on the basis of which it ordered a certain investigation without issuing prior notice, infringed natural justice.

    COURT’S REASONING AND KEY FINDINGS

    In the present case the Court took a measured approach to address the seeming conflict between the TRAI and the CCI. The Court recognised TRAI and CCI as specialised regulators, but with distinct mandates. TRAI’s jurisdiction is deeply rooted in the technical and operational aspects such as licensing, tariff regulation and interconnection. Whereas, the duty of CCI is to ensure the fair market behaviour, investigating abuse of dominance and maintaining competitive equilibrium.

    Crucially, the Court declined the notion that an overlap of functions implied the jurisdictional exclusion. Instead, it emphasised upon maintaining functional harmony while echoing the principles laid down in Bharti Airtel case. It reaffirmed that sectoral expertise should not forbid competition oversight where market manipulation is concerned.

    Regarding the procedure, the Court clarified that under Section 26(1) of the Act, the CCI is not required to issue prior notice before directing the DG to investigate. Additionally, the Court also clarified that marketing agreements, when used to disguise anti-competitive conduct, clearly falls under jurisdiction of CCI not TRAI’s.

    Thus, the judgement upheld the autonomy of the CCI while also reaffirming the value of inter-regulatory cooperation rather than conflict.

    EU EXPERIENCE: WHY TURF WARS ARE RARE

    This is unlike the country India which has not experienced any conflict of jurisdiction between sectors within the European Union. This can be called the result of a highly orchestrated regulatory design. The Regulation 1/2003 clearly stipulates the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in parallel to national or sectoral regulations, whereas the ECN+ Directive (2019/1) takes the matter of coordination by supporting the national competition authorities with harmonization of powers and its integration into the European Competition Network (‘ECN’) The ECN serves as the facilitator of coherent enforcement so that the regulatory intersections do not result into the inter-institutional disagreements.

    The reduction of redundancy and construction of cooperative enforcement is reflected not only in scholarly analysis, e.g., in Potocnik & Manzour, in European Papers, but also in the ICN, 2025 report. The principle has been entrenched in courts interpretation: in Deutsche Telekom (C-280/08 P) and Telefnicia (C-295/12 P), the CJEU said that even approved by the regulator tariffs could amount to margin compression under Article 102 TFEU. In Meta v Bundeskartellamt (C-252/21) decided more recently, the Court empowered competition authorities to take into account compliance with the GDPR and stressed that cooperation with regulators must be followed.

    The combination of these aspects demonstrates that they are established on complementary and coordinating basis, with not much room left to turf wars as seen between TRAI and CCI in India continuously.

    PREDATORY PRICING OR PRICE PENETRATION?

    In the landmark Bharti Airtel Case, the SC was confronted with the critical question of whether Jio’s initial free pricing model amounted to predatory pricing under the Act. Bharti Airtel alleged that Jio’s deep pricing offering telecom services at virtually no cost was not a legitimate market entry strategy but a means to eliminate competition through price predation. The CCI, however, dismissed the complaint at the prima-facie stage, holding that no case of abuse of dominance was made out, especially since Jio was a new entrant and not a dominant player in the relevant market at the time.

    The case not only clarified the line between legitimate price penetration and predatory pricing but also underscored the importance of TRAI’s sectoral expertise which includes regulating tariffs, interconnection agreements, and market entry conditions. It held that CCI should intervene only after TRAI has addressed the relevant technical and regulatory concerns.

    The decision is particularly relevant in this case of similar allegations of discriminatory pricing and jurisdictional overlap between CCI and TRAI and therefore, the necessity of coordinated regulation and the balancing of market entry and anti-competitive protection in regulated industries.

    IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESSES AND REGULATORY PRACTICE

    The Asianet judgment is not just an institutional ground score settlement, but has real consequences on the market players. Telecom and media businesses will no longer be able to believe that their conformity to TRAI norms will exempt them of competition scrutiny. In even the most regulated industries, anti-competitive practices like discriminatory pricing, exclusive agreements or fake agreements could be subject to parallel proceedings by the CCI.

    The judgement also hereby denoted that both regulatory due diligence is now a two-dimensional authentication, on one hand, sectoral compliance and on the other hand, competitive impact. Marketing agreements, tie-ups, or discount structures will not only have to be tested against TRAI guidelines but also against possible exposure to the competition law.

    Furthermore, this facilitates a more cooperative style, switching from a turf war to a joint control that balances technical oversight and equity in the market. This move deters the exploitation of regulatory areas by businesses and ensures a transparent conduct across all operations.

    CONCLUSION

    The Asianet case is a milestone in the regulation development of India that was in conflict to cooperation. The Kerala High Court in maintaining the concurrent jurisdiction of TRAI and CCI, allowed that regulatory overlaps are not necessarily problematic provided both regulatory authorities are mindful of functional limits. In conjunction with Bharti Airtel, the ruling highlights the fact that the judiciary favours cooperation among regulators as opposed to competition.

    Nonetheless, harmonisation through judges is not a complete solution. The convergence of telecom, media and technology sectors has been growing and as a result, overlaps will continue to increase. India should thus institutionalise inter-regulatory coordination by statutory reforms, memoranda of understandings or joint decision making. The UK and EU are good examples where coordination models are clear, and the regulators follow them.  The Indian regulation of the future is not in the strict jurisdiction separation but in the collaborative models that provides predictability to the business, efficiency to the markets and fairness to the consumers.

  • Digital Competition Bill: Complementing or Competing with the Competition Act?

    Digital Competition Bill: Complementing or Competing with the Competition Act?

    BY Winnie Bhat, SECOND- YEAR STUDENT AT NALSAR, HYDERABAD
    Introduction

    Data is the oil that fuels the engine of the digital world. The economic value and competitive significance of data accumulation for companies in the digital age cannot be overstated. It is in recognition of this synergy between competition and data privacy laws, that the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) has imposed a fine of Rs 213 crore on Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, for abusing its dominant market position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘CA’).

    As digital markets evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that regulate them. This article considers whether the proposed Digital Competition Bill, 2024 (‘DCB’) enhances the current competition regime or risks undermining it through regulatory overlap. In doing so, it assesses how traditional competition tools have been stretched to meet new challenges and whether a shift toward an ex-ante model is necessary and prudent.

    Reliance on Competition Act, 2002

    In the absence of a dedicated digital competition framework, Indian regulators have increasingly relied on the CA to address issues of market concentration, data-driven dominance, and unfair terms imposed by Big Tech firms. One of the clearest examples of this reliance is the CCI’s scrutiny of WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy. In the present case, CCI found that WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy which mandated sharing of users’ data with WhatsApp and thereafter its subsequent sharing with Facebook vitiated the ‘free’, ‘optional’ and ‘well-informed’ consent of users as WhatsApp’s dominant position in the market coupled with network and tipping effects effectively left users with no real or practical choice but to accept its unfair terms.

    This contrasts with the CCI’s previous stances in Vinod Kumar Gupta v WhatsApp and Harshita Chawla v WhatsApp & Facebook, where it declined to intervene because data privacy violation did not impact competition. However, in a slew of progressive developments, a market study by CCI has now recognized privacy as a non-price competition factor and the Supreme Court’s nod in 2022 for CCI to continue investigation in the Meta-WhatsApp mater has effectively granted CCI the jurisdiction to deal with issues relating to privacy that have an adverse effect on competition.

    The facts of this case very closely resemble that of Bundeskartellamt v Facebook Inc.,2019 wherein the German competition regulator had flagged Facebook for imposing one sided terms about tracking users’ activity in the social networking market where consent was reduced to a mere formality. Both cases illustrate how dominant digital platforms exploit their market power to impose unfair terms on users, effectively bypassing meaningful consent. This pattern reflects a deeper structural issue—where existing competition law, focused on ex-post remedies, is used to address the unique challenges of digital markets. It is precisely this regulatory gap that the proposed DCB seeks to fill through its ex-ante approach.

    Abuse of dominant positions by Big Tech companies in the digital era occurs in more subtle ways as the price of these services is paid for with users’ personal data. A unilateral modification in the data privacy policy leaves users vulnerable as they have little bargaining power against established corporate behemoths. These companies collect huge chunks of “Big data” by taking advantage of their dominance in one relevant market (in the present case, the instant messaging market) and use them in other relevant markets (social networking, personalized advertising, etc.) which gives them a significant edge against their competitors. This creates entry barriers and a disproportionate share of the market goes to a few large corporations resulting in monopoly-like conditions.

    To deal with such issues, competition law first identifies a corporation’s dominant position in the market. Once this is established, it investigates the factors that lead to the abuse of this position. Here, the factor is collection of data which invades the privacy of users without their free and informed consent. The CCI, in its ruling against Meta, held WhatsApp to be in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the CA, dealing with imposition of unfair conditions in purchase of service, engagement in practices resulting in denial of market access and use of dominant position in one market to secure its market position in another relevant market respectively.

    The Digital Competition Bill, 2024

    The proposed Digital Competition Bill, 2024  when enacted, would signify a landmark shift in how India approaches competition regulation in digital markets. Unlike the CA, which operates on an ex-post basis; acting upon violations after analysing their effects, the DCB introduces a proactive approach that seeks to regulate the conduct of Systemically Significant Digital Enterprises (‘SSDEs’) through an ex-ante framework. SSDEs are large digital enterprises that enjoy a position of entrenched market power and serve as critical intermediaries between businesses and users. The DCB aims to curb their ability to engage in self-preferencing, data misuse, and other exclusionary practices before harm occurs, rather than waiting for evidence of anti-competitive outcomes. While this progressive approach aims to address the unique challenges posed by the dominance of digital giants, it also raises critical concerns about legislative overlap, disproportionate penalties on corporations and potential legal uncertainty.

    A key issue with the coexistence of the DCB and the CA is the overlap in their regulatory scopes. The CA, particularly through Section 4, targets abuse of dominance through a detailed effects-based inquiry. As evidenced in the CCI’s ruling against WhatsApp, a compromise or breach of data privacy of the users will not be tolerated and has the potential to be considered as a means of abuse of an enterprise’s dominant position. By contrast, the DCB imposes predetermined obligations on SSDEs, which are deemed to have significant market power. Section 12 of the DCB prescribes certain limitations on the use of personal data of the users of SSDEs, whereas Section 16 grants the CCI the power to inquire into non-compliance if a prima facie case is made out, regardless of the effects such non-compliance may have on competition.

    Concerns about dual enforcement

    This duality creates an ambiguity. For instance, should a prima facie case involving data misuse by an SSDE, which unfairly elevates its market position, be assessed under the CA’s abuse of dominance provisions, or should it fall exclusively within the purview of the DCB? The risk of dual penalties further compounds these challenges. Section 28 (1) of the DCB empowers the CCI to impose significant fines (not exceeding 10% of its global turnover) on SSDEs for non-compliance with its obligations. However, under Section 48 of the CA, these entities are also subject to penalties for engaging in anti-competitive behaviour that may stem from the same act of data misuse.

    Although, the protection against double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, the spirit of double jeopardy is clearly visible in this case, wherein businesses could face disproportionate punishments for overlapping offenses, raising concerns about fairness and proportionality. This mirrors similar concerns in the European Union, where the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) (India’s DCB is modelled on EU’s DMA) and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (traditional EU competition law provisions) operate in tandem. However, EU’s DMA grants the European Commission overriding powers over the nations’ competition regulating authorities, which brings unique challenges and is not applicable in India since the regulating authority (CCI) oversees implementation of both the CA and DCB. This vests the CCI with considerable discretion in deciding which act takes precedence and their spheres of regulation. The MCA report leaves potential overlaps in proceedings to be resolved by the CCI on an ad hoc basis. Therefore, statutory clarity on the application of the DCB and the CA are essential to avoid inconsistency in outcomes.

    The Way Forward

    To address these challenges, India must focus on creating a harmonious regulatory framework. Moreover, a Digital Markets Coordination Council could be established to harmonize enforcement actions, share data, and resolve jurisdictional disputes. Such a body could include representatives from the CCI, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and independent technical experts to ensure holistic oversight.

    Proportional penalties are another area for reform. Lawmakers should ensure that corporations do not have to bear the burden of being punished in two different ways for the same offence. Introducing a standardised penalty framework across the DCB and CA would prevent over-penalisation and ensure fairness.

    Since the DCB has not been enacted yet, India can pre-empt these concerns of overlap and ensure that the CA and DCB complement rather than compete with each other. The exact scope of a solution to these concerns is beyond the scope of this article, but by learning from the EU’s experiences and adopting a coordinated, balanced approach, India can create a regulatory framework that promotes innovation, safeguards competition, and protects consumers’ rights and interests in the digital age.

  • Assessing the Deal Value Threshold: Shortcomings and the Way Forward

    Assessing the Deal Value Threshold: Shortcomings and the Way Forward

    BY DHRUV MEHTA, FIFTH-YEAR STUDENT AT JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL, SONIPAT

    introduction

    Recently, the Parliament passed the Competition Amendment Act, 2023, which makes substantial amendments to the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act‘). Amongst the plethora of amendments, the most prominent amendment is the introduction of the deal value threshold (‘DVT‘). DVT is the additional threshold that requires notification (in the absence of any exemption) of a merger or acquisition with a deal value threshold of INR 2,000 crores (USD 0.24 billion) where either of the party to the deal has ‘substantial business operations in India’ (‘SBOI‘). Through the introduction of the Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2023 (‘Draft Regulations‘), the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI‘) has brought more clarity with respect to the ‘transaction value’ and ‘substantial business operations’ under the DVT framework. Through this blog post, the author examines the limitations in the CCI’s interpretation of the DVT and offers recommendations to enhance its clarity and effectiveness.

    Once the Amendment Act was passed, the onus was now on the CCI to quickly define what constitutes ‘value of transaction’ and ‘substantial business operations’. The CCI has followed the footsteps of Germany and Austria by rightly defining what exactly constitutes ‘value of transaction’ and ‘substantial business operations’. However, there are a few shortcomings as to how transaction value has been interpreted and defined by the CCI.

    Transaction Value: Shortcomings and Recommendations

    a. Incidental Arrangements

    Regulation 4(1)(c) of the Draft Regulations requires the value of a consideration to include ‘incidental arrangements’ for calculating DVT. The definition of ‘incidental arrangement’ is confusing and excessively broad. Examining whether a transaction is notifiable would be difficult if an incidental arrangement is accepted in its current form as it may encompass unconnected transactions that weren’t anticipated by the parties when entering into the main transaction.

    To ensure certainty for parties involved in a transaction and to reduce ambiguity in applying the DVT, the CCI should limit ‘incidental arrangements’ to those arrangements foreseen by the parties when the transaction was initiated. Such arrangements should also be explicitly documented in the transaction records. Furthermore, under Regulations 9(4) and 9(5) respectively, read along with Regulation 4(1)(b), the CCI has the power to review interconnected steps of a single transaction when the transaction meets the test of interconnection. In the past, the CCI has exercised its powers by reviewing interconnected transactions in proceedings against the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and ReNew Power Limited under Section 43A of the Act.  

    This makes the proposed provision unnecessary if ‘incidental arrangements’ are linked to the transaction because the CCI already has the power to look at subsequent transactions that are interconnected. It is recommended that given CCI’s ambit to assess interconnected transactions, it should reconsider the need for incorporating ‘incidental arrangements’  under the value of a transaction. Furthermore, in the event that the CCI decides to retain the said clause, ‘incidental arrangements’ should only include, transactions foreseen by the parties which are included in the transaction documents during execution.

    b. Uncertainty in the Valuation of Non-Compete Clauses

    The draft regulations require that the value of any non-compete clauses be included while calculating the value of a transaction for DVT. There are a few shortcomings with the said requirement.

    Firstly, it is often difficult to attribute value to non-compete clauses. The value of such non-compete clauses is often reflected in the purchase price listed in the transaction documents. When a non-compete clause is not listed in the transaction document, it is often challenging to assign an exact value to such a clause, and assigning an exact value would compromise the DVT’s inherent predictability and clarity. This would be against the ICN Recommended Practices for Merger Notification and Review Procedures, which highlight how important it is for merger control systems to have clear, transparent rules- especially in light of the growing number of deals happening across several jurisdictions.

    Secondly, the value of the transaction is the value that is attributed to the non-compete provision. If the CCI wants to attribute a separate and distinct value to a non-compete agreement that is separate from the value of a transaction, it should not speculate on assigning the value to the non-compete agreement. Rather, when the board of directors of the acquirer or the seller gives a specific value to the non-compete agreement at the time of the transaction, the CCI should also value the non-compete at the same specific value as given by the board of directors.

    It is recommended that the CCI amend the Draft Regulations to include the value of non-compete clauses and agreements as part of DVT as listed in the transaction documents. It should also be made clear in the Draft Regulations that the CCI can only assign a value to a non-compete agreement if it has been given careful thought and approval by the boards of directors of the target company and the acquiring company.

    c. Valuation of Options and Securities

    According to the Draft Regulations, the whole value of the options and securities to be acquired, along with the assumption that such options would be exercised to the fullest extent possible, must be included in the consideration for the DVT for a transaction.

    It is observed that by including the whole value of options, DVT could be breached or relatively small transactions could also be flagged. Moreover, including the full value of options that could potentially be exercised may lead to an overstatement or understatement of their value, as the price at the time of exercise could differ from the price when the option is initially granted. In the USA, the Hart-Scott-Rodino (‘HSR‘) rules state that valuation reports presented to the board of directors would be used as a point of reference for determining the value of a consideration when the same value is unknown but capable of being estimated. The CCI could adopt the practice as stated by the HSR rules, where it could consider the value of an option not on the basis of assumption but instead based on valuation reports presented to the board of directors.

    In line with the stance in other countries and the CCI’s own decisional practice, it is advised that the whole value of shares received upon exercising an option be considered only if and when the option is exercised. Further, to eliminate any doubt regarding the value of the options, the CCI could only take into account the entire value of the options if they are exercised at the per-share price paid to shareholders (perhaps as a way to assign a portion of the transaction value to particular persons).

    Substantial Business Operations: Shortcomings and Recommedations

    Under the Draft Regulations, SBOI is established if, within the 12 months preceding the transaction, the business demonstrates that 10% or more of either (a) its global user/subscriber/customer/visitor base, (b) global gross merchandise value, or (c) global revenue from all goods and services in the prior financial year, is attributable to India. The author welcomes the CCI’s target-only approach for judging local nexus. However, to ensure that transactions having a limited nexus to the Indian markets are adequately filtered out, the CCI needs to make a few amendments to the SBOI framework in India.

    • Redefining ‘Users, Subscribers, Customers, and Visitors’

    Considering ‘every download’ as a ‘user’ would be an overstatement and therefore the threshold of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ could lead to double counting as the said requirement is extremely expansive. For a single product business, such as a social networking website, there is a possibility to have a different number of subscribers than users or visitors, and these subscribers may not be active users or visitors. Thus, such ‘visitors’ might not contribute towards the economic value of the target enterprise and should be discounted from the threshold.

    Furthermore, the CCI could have taken inspiration from Germany and Austria who have provided adequate guidance on how to compute the user threshold for digital markets. The Digital Markets Act of the EU also includes clear definitions for terms such as ‘active end users’ and ‘active business users‘ tailored to various products and services such as online intermediation services, search engines, social networking platforms, video sharing services, and more. The measurement of such users, subscribers, customers, and visitors should be carried out according to industry standards as providing an exhaustive list is nearly impossible.

    The CCI through a guidance note could narrow down the ambit of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ to that of ‘monthly active users’, ‘unique visitors’ and ‘daily active users’ in the digital markets for assessing SBOI as done by German and Austrian Competition regulators. The CCI could further bring more clarity to its implementation of DVT by referring to the rulings of Meta’s Acquisition of Kustomer and Meta’s acquisition of GIPHY.

    Under the ambit of ‘users’ the CCI could consider both direct and indirect users. Taking inspiration from the aforementioned cases, the CCI could define direct users as those who were paying for the product as well as who are licensed customers. Indirect users would be considered as those who accessed the application, for example, GIPHY library through third-party mediums/applications such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the CCI ought to establish distinct standards for evaluating activities across various sectors, just as the German and Austrian guidelines on transaction value threshold do.

    Thus, the author suggests that the criteria of ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’ be replaced by ‘active users which consists of daily, monthly, yearly, direct and indirect users, and unique visitors’. Further, as specific definitions are provided in the Digital Markets Act for ‘active business users’ and ‘active end users’ the CCI could provide guidance for the same across various sectors.

    Conclusion

    The CCI is seen to be taking some major strides in regulating competition in new-age deals within the digital sphere. Taking inspiration from Germany and Austria, the Competition Act was amended to introduce the deal value threshold, which effectively provides the CCI the jurisdiction to assess those digital mergers with little or no assets or revenue. The CCI has tried its best to bring more clarity with regard to the interpretation of transaction value and substantial business operations under the DVT framework. However, it remains to be seen as to how the practical implementation of DVT would be undertaken by the CCI. As highlighted, under the ‘substantial business operations’ prong, the CCI should bring more clarity by clearly redefining ‘users, subscribers, customers, and visitors’.  Towards the final step, the CCI also needs to streamline its approach to reviewing interconnected transactions and the valuation of non-compete clauses.

  • Examining Loopholes and Challenges in the Draft Digital Competition Bill

    Examining Loopholes and Challenges in the Draft Digital Competition Bill

    BY KASHVI SINGH SHEKHAWAT, SECOND-YEAR STUDENT AT NLU, ODISHA

    Digital platforms have significantly transformed the global economy and society and are central to 21st-century technological advancements. They have introduced innovative products and services that were unimaginable a few decades ago which break down borders to deliver these benefits worldwide. 

    The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of digital platforms, but also raised concerns about market dominance and anti-competitive practices. In response, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs proposed the Draft Digital Competition Bill (‘the Bill’) on March 12 to curb these practices, promote fair competition, and improve market transparency.

    This Bill, which aims to regulate digital markets and curb anti-competitive practices contains potential loopholes that could undermine its effectiveness. This might impact the Bill’s ability to effectively curb anti-competitive practices, ensure fair competition, and promote market transparency. Thus, there is a crucial need to identify and address areas where the Bill may fall short ensuring a more robust and comprehensive regulatory approach.

    Ex-Ante Regulation

    Ex-ante regulation involves setting rules and guidelines in advance to prevent market issues before they arise, as opposed to addressing problems after they occur (which is ex-post regulation). It’s a proactive approach aimed at maintaining fair competition and preventing market failures from the outset. This is typically used to address market failure but this is not the case with India. As per the ITIF’s Hamilton Index Report, India is a top producer in key industries with a thriving digital market and the third-largest startup ecosystem. However, concerns about market power in digital markets persist with claims that consumer data feedback loops, network effects, and economies of scale favor incumbents, potentially leading to market concentration. While network effects can benefit consumers, market concentration is not an inevitable outcome. Digital markets often exhibit multi-homing, where consumers use multiple platforms, enhancing competition. Market power in dynamic markets can drive innovation, reflecting Schumpeterian “gales of creative destruction” where firms continually innovate to compete.

    Even if market failure exists, ex-ante bans as proposed by the Bill must demonstrate that they improve the current system. The ITIF report suggests that ex-ante regulation might hinder market forces essential for correcting failures and enhancing consumer welfare. The report also highlights that the current ex-post enforcement model has limitations but that does not prove that ex-ante regulation would be better. The complementarity between ex-ante and ex-post regimes does not necessarily enhance consumer welfare and could maintain administrative costs while risking false positives. Thus, the questions arise that whether the benefits of an ex-ante regime outweigh the potential harms.

    Tailored Regulatory Approach

    The approach of implementing more tailored, company-specific rules, as seen in the Bill following the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers model aims to mitigate false positives in theory. This strategy gives regulators the discretion to craft individualized conduct codes for each company rather than imposing blanket rules across entire industries. However, this strategy poses challenges. Firstly, it runs the risk of generating high administrative costs that the ex-ante regime was meant to avoid. For instance, the Bill anticipates extensive non-compliance inquiries involving costly processes like discovery, detailed fact-finding, and potentially adversarial proceedings. Secondly, as noted previously, such an approach could lead to concerns about regulatory capture, where regulatory decisions might favor established players over new entrants. This could result in disparate treatment within the digital market ecosystem. Thirdly, the government’s ex-ante regulatory approach could impose significant burdens on digital companies, potentially making operations untenable and stifling venture investments in tech startups. High regulatory risks can deter investors by affecting returns and business conditions, with increased compliance costs and scrutiny especially challenging for resource-limited startups. 

    In essence, instead of effectively addressing market failures, the Bill could potentially create a regulatory framework that escalates administrative expenses and selectively benefits certain digital entities while disadvantaging others.

    Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises

    The Bill’s definition of Systematically Significant Digital Enterprises (‘SSDE’) is problematic. Firstly, its quantitative threshold targets companies solely based on their size, without considering whether they possess market power—a necessary though not sufficient condition for market failure. Additionally, the Bill includes a vague and ambiguous qualitative test for identifying SSDEs if quantitative criteria are not met. This test vague because it involves assessing broad and subjective factors, such as a company’s influence on digital markets or its potential effect on competition, without clearly outlining how these factors should be measured. The absence of precise definitions makes it difficult for companies to understand the criteria they must meet, leading to inconsistent application by regulators. This uncertainty can result in varying interpretations, leaving digital firms unsure of how they will be classified.

    This could lead to an ad hoc regulatory regime, granting excessive discretion to regulators and creating uncertainty for many digital firms. This uncertainty is further compounded by the Bill’s company-specific approach to rulemaking, which raises concerns about regulatory capture and the potential for the Bill to be used to pick digital winners and losers in India.

    According to the Competition Commission of India, at least 580 companies from the digital service and e-commerce sectors alone would qualify as SSDEs in India. This contrasts sharply with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’), which designates only 6 gatekeepers. Thus, this large number of designated SSDEs would impose significant compliance burdens on these companies, potentially hindering their ability to introduce new services and innovate. 

    Innovation

    The Bill proposed in India raises significant concerns regarding its potential impact on innovation. Firstly, unlike the EU’s DMA and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, the Indian Bill does not mandate a finding of market power as a prerequisite for applying its quantitative tests. This omission suggests that the Bill could target companies purely based on their size, rather than addressing genuine market failures, which regulation should ideally target. Moreover, the Bill’s provision for a three-year designation period with automatic renewal, coupled with limited opportunities for revocation, fails to account for the dynamic nature of market power in digital markets, potentially leading to regulatory overreach. Secondly, while the Bill proposes company-specific restrictions, its approach of imposing per se bans on various common business practices is likely to stifle pro-competitive behavior. For instance, prohibitions on practices like self-preferencing, where digital platforms prioritize their own products over third-party offerings could hamper innovation and reduce consumer choice. Such practices often enhance user experience and foster competition among digital platforms, as seen in cases where companies like Google leverage scale to improve search quality and compete effectively with rivals.

    Thus, the lack of clear market power criteria, broad SSDE designation criteria, and per se bans on common business practices raise significant concerns about the Bill’s potential negative impact on innovation in India’s digital economy.

    Cost- Benefit Analysis 

    The Bill in India raises critical questions about its potential impact and necessity in the digital sector. One fundamental concern is whether the costs and benefits of digital competition regulation have been adequately assessed. As it currently stands, the objectives of the Bill appear to diverge from traditional competition law principles, which aim primarily to safeguard consumer welfare. Instead, akin to the EU’s DMA, the Bill seems more focused on assisting competitors rather than directly benefiting consumers. This shift could open the door to rent-seeking behaviors from private entities with vested interests, potentially leading to demands for extensive product-design changes that may not align with consumer preferences. Thus, the costs of the Bill are palpable. In the EU, similar regulations have delayed products like Meta’s Threads due to compliance uncertainties. Consumer experiences have also been impacted, such as Google’s changes to search result functionalities under DMA rules, which affect user convenience and business outcomes.

    While proponents argue the Bill addresses digital market risks, India already has robust competition laws and sector-specific regulations under the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’). Introducing the Bill would mark a departure by using size-based criteria reminiscent of older regulatory regimes which could potentially disrupt India’s current approach aligned with international best practices.

    Enforcing the Bill would demand significant resources and expertise across multiple domains, similar to challenges faced by the European Commission with the DMA. There are grounds for revisiting or reevaluating the proposed legislation unless the benefits of the Bill clearly outweigh its costs in enhancing public welfare. This includes ensuring regulatory interventions support innovation and do not unduly burden digital businesses in India’s dynamic market landscape.

    Conclusion

    There is a need to enhance the collaborative nature of enforcement by establishing regulatory dialogues involving gatekeepers, business users, end-users, and external stakeholders such as experts and auditors as designating SDSE’s will lead to more litigations. This inclusive approach aims to encourage gatekeepers to comply with regulations without allowing regulatory capture. Such dialogues are seen as essential for improving compliance monitoring. This dialogue should be meaningful and not merely procedural, ensuring that the obligations outlined by the CCI are genuinely developed through these interactions. CCI should also take a more proactive role in assisting and resolving complaints from businesses. This proactive stance would enable quicker and more effective resolution of issues, strengthening overall compliance with the Bill Furthermore, alongside enforcement efforts by the CCI and national authorities, there is a call for greater private enforcement. This would allow businesses using gatekeeper services to initiate legal actions in courts, seeking injunctions and damages for bill violations. Private enforcement mechanisms can swiftly identify infringements and act as a robust deterrent, thereby bolstering overall Bill compliance.

  • SEBI in the Shoes of CCI: the Jurisdictional Tussle Continues

    SEBI in the Shoes of CCI: the Jurisdictional Tussle Continues

    By Deepanshu Agarwal, a fourth-year student at UPES, Dehradun

    Introduction

    The Securities & Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) and the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) are separate independent regulatory bodies which often jurisdictionally overlap with each other. This happens due to the commonality in their objectives of ensuring the protection of consumers and promoting a healthy market.

    In the case of Advocate Jitesh Maheshwari v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (2019) (‘NSE Case’), CCI refused to deal with the matterregarding abuse of dominance by National Stock Exchange (‘NSE’) and allowed SEBI to continue with their practice. This was a drastic turn taken by CCI to allow a sectoral regulator to deal with the abuse of dominance, which is an issue majorly dealt with by CCI under section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

    In the instant case, the informant alleged that for almost four years (i.e. 2010-2014), NSE had been giving preferential treatment and unfair access to some of the traders by communicating to them price feed and other data. According to the informant, this was a discriminatory practice followed by NSE towards other traders on the same footing & thus resulted in ‘denial of market access’. Moreover, the informant proposed the relevant market as the ‘market for providing services of trading in securities’ and contended that NSE is a dominant player in the market as it holds a huge market share, consumer dependency and entry barriers for the new stock exchanges.

    Though CCI noted that such discriminatory practices exist in its jurisdiction, the case was dismissed without going into its merits. The reasoning of CCI was that: (i) the allegations against NSE were not final and are yet to be established in appropriate proceedings; and that (ii) there was a lack of evidence to form a prima facie opinion about the role of NSE. However, CCI mentioned that it could examine the discriminatory and abusive conduct independently, based on cogent facts and evidence after the completion of investigation by SEBI. But the question that remains unanswered here is that if SEBI does not reach an adverse finding on the question of NSE’s role, can CCI then still examine NSE’s conduct? To answer this question, it becomes imperative to analyse this order in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. (2019) (‘Bharti Airtel’).

    The jurisdictional tussle in Bharti Airtel

    Though this case revolves around the jurisdictional fight between Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (‘TRAI’) and CCI, yet it is a landmark judgment when it comes to the jurisdictional overlap between CCI and other sectoral regulators, apart from TRAI.

    Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., a new entrant in the telecom market, approached CCI against the Incumbent Dominant Operators (or ‘IDOs’ namely Bharti Airtel, Idea Cellular and Vodafone) for forming a cartel to deny market entry and thereby causing an adverse effect on competition in the telecom market. While the case was already under investigation by TRAI, CCI found out a prima facie violation against the IDOs. The Bombay High Court, in the appeal made by the IDOs, set aside the order of CCI on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction as the matter was already under investigation by TRAI.

    The Supreme Court while confirming the findings of the Bombay High Court did not deny the jurisdiction of CCI altogether but made its investigation subject to the findings of TRAI. It did so by giving CCI a secondary jurisdiction over the matter. In this regard, the court held that “Once that investigation is done and there are findings returned by the TRAI which lead to the prima facie conclusion that IDOs have indulged in anti-competitive practices, the CCI can be activated to investigate the matter going by the criteria laid down in the relevant provisions of the Competition Act and take it to its logical conclusion”.

    Applying the reading of Bharti Airtel to the NSE case, it can be concluded that the jurisdiction of the CCI begins only when there are adverse findings returned by SEBI. Similar to TRAI, SEBI is also a sectoral regulator and will have primary jurisdiction in dealing with the abuse of dominance/adverse competition in the capital markets. Therefore, it can be concluded in the instant order that the CCI was justified in not going into the merits, by accepting itself as a regulator having a secondary jurisdiction in such cases.

    Since the instant order passed by CCI is in line with Bharti Airtel, it also suffers from similar criticisms.

    Criticism of the NSE Case

    Since both SEBI and CCI have a common objective to ensure consumer protection and fair market competition, it is clear that there may be jurisdictional overlaps. Both the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and the Competition Act, 2002 provide for jurisdiction in addition to and not in derogation to other laws. However, neither of the two acts provide the remedy in case of a jurisdictional overlap. This ambiguity paves the way for concurrent jurisdiction of both the regulators which further leads to conflicting decisions and legal uncertainty.

    In such a scenario, putting CCI at a lower pedestal by giving it secondary jurisdiction (as evidenced in Bharti Airtel and the NSE case) may not be the optimal solution for jurisdictional issues. Rather, the CCI being an independent competition watchdog should be allowed to deal with the competition matters freely and irrespective of the findings of the sectoral regulators. It has to be noted that CCI is a specialized body created solely with the purpose to prevent abuse of dominance and adverse effect of competition. Therefore, subjecting CCI’s jurisdiction to the findings of any other sectoral regulator would only hamper the object for which it was created, thereby weakening its authority.

    The Way Forward

    The best way through which the jurisdictional tussle can be resolved is following the mandatory consultation approach. This means that if a situation of jurisdictional intersect arises, then both the regulators should consult with each other as to who can deal with the matter more effectively and efficiently. This can be a credible solution to remove all defects from such jurisdictional matters and ensure some technical input is also given by the sectoral regulator.

    Under the current regulatory framework, India follows a non-mandatory consultation approach. Section 21 & 21A of the Competition Act incorporates a mechanism for consultation between the statutory authorities and the commission. However, consultation under these sections is neither mandatory nor binding.

    Lessons should be drawn from other countries which are successfully following the mandatory consultation approach. For example, in Turkey, under the Electronic Communications Law No. 5809, the Competition Board has the statutory duty to receive and take account of the opinion of the relevant regulatory authority (the Information Technologies and Communications Authority) when enforcing the competition law in the telecommunications sector. Moreover, Turkey’s competition authority also sends its opinion to the Information Technologies and Communications Authority regarding draft regulations in the consultation process.

    The mandatory consultation process is also followed in other countries like Argentina and France. This process was also suggested in India by the National Committee on National Competition Policy and Allied Matters in 2011. Therefore, it is the need of the hour that this change be implemented.

    Considering the existing legislative framework, substituting the word ‘may’ with ‘shall’ in Sections 21 and 21A of the Competition Act and making the opinion of CCI or the sectoral regulators binding upon the other will leverage the expertise of both the entities and will enable the initiation of a cooperative regime.

    Conclusion

    Abuse of dominance/adverse effect on market is specifically the area that CCI deals with, it is erroneous for SEBI to encroach upon the same. Both the technical aspects and the competition matters in a case have to be viewed separately. SEBI being a sectoral regulator and a lex specialis in the capital markets can deal with the technical matters more effectively than CCI. Whereas, on the other hand, CCI being a lex specialis in competition matters can deal with the same with more proficiency. Therefore, in cases involving jurisdictional conflict, it is fallacious to place CCI at a secondary stage. Rather, the mandatory consultation approach should be followed by the regulators in such cases to solve the conflict in a more harmonious and effectual manner.