Quick Updates — November & December 2025

Delhi High Court: Interest on CCI Penalties Requires Prior Demand Notice

In Competition Commission of India v. Geep Industries & Ors, the Delhi High Court has clarified that interest on penalties imposed under the Competition Act, 2002 cannot be levied unless a statutory demand notice is first issued. Dismissing CCI’s Letters Patent Appeal, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s ruling that issuance and service of a demand notice in Form I under the 2011 Recovery Regulations is a mandatory precondition for accrual of interest.

The judgment establishes that regulatory power must be exercised strictly within the procedural framework prescribed by law. The Bench rejected the CCI's argument that interest accrues automatically upon the expiry of a penalty order or that principles of restitution should apply to recover "lost" interest. The Court clarified that Regulations 3 and 5 create a specific chronological sequence: interest is only chargeable if an enterprise fails to pay within the 30-day window specified in the demand notice. Consequently, the CCI’s attempt to impose liability retrospectively was deemed ultra vires and legally unsustainable.

CCI Orders DG Probe Against Basketball Federation of India

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), has directed an investigation against the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, on allegations of abuse of dominance and anti-competitive conduct. The case was initiated on information filed by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited, which alleged that BFI unlawfully obstructed the launch of its proposed professional basketball league and promotional events.

The CCI prima facie found that BFI, as the sole National Sports Federation for basketball in India and a FIBA-affiliated body, enjoys a dominant position in the market for organization of basketball leagues/events/tournaments in India. The Commission noted that BFI’s conduct, including denial of sanction to private leagues, issuance of circulars restraining players from participating in non-BFI authorised events, and threats of disciplinary action, may restrict players’ freedom and deny market access to rival organisers.

Such conduct was found to prima facie contravene Sections 4(2)(b)(i), 4(2)(c), 3(4)(c), and 3(4)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the Director General has been directed to complete the investigation within 60 days.

CCI Dismisses Bid-Rigging Allegations in SCCL Tender Case

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed proceedings against the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, finding no prima facie case of bid-rigging. The case arose from a complaint by Universal Gauges and Instruments, whose bid was disqualified at the pre-qualification stage of a tender for procurement of tyre dismantling machines.

The Informant alleged that SCCL deliberately relied on an incorrect technical evaluation report to exclude its bid and favour competitors, amounting to bid-rigging under Section 3(3)(d). The CCI noted, however, that the Information lacked any specific allegations or evidence of collusion, such as details of bidders, pricing patterns, or coordination among participants.

Reiterating settled law, the Commission held that tender design and technical qualification criteria fall within the legitimate discretion of the procurer and do not, by themselves, raise competition concerns. As no evidence of cartelisation or bid-rigging was shown, the Information was dismissed, without prejudice to other legal remedies available to the Informant.

CCI Re-Imposes Penalties in Pune Municipal Corporation Bid-Rigging Cases

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), by order dated 10 November 2025, has re-determined penalties concerning cartelisation in multiple tenders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation for solid waste processing plants. The proceedings followed remand directions of the NCLAT, which had upheld findings of bid-rigging but required reconsideration of penalty quantum.

The CCI found that several entities, led by Fortified Security Solutions and Ecoman Enviro Solutions Pvt. Ltd., orchestrated collusive bidding across at least seven tenders, with the use of proxy and cover bidders. Applying the 2024 Penalty Guidelines, the Commission observed that restricting penalties to 'relevant turnover' would be ineffective and inequitable, as the 'cover bidders' had no turnover from the specific solid waste management business. Consequently, utilizing the mandate under the new guidelines, the CCI calculated the penalties based on the global turnover of the involved enterprises, imposing the maximum statutory penalty of 10% of their average global turnover for the preceding three financial years to ensure meaningful deterrence.

FTC’s Monopolization Case Against Meta Fails in Evolving Social Media Market

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the FTC’s attempt to prove that Meta unlawfully maintained monopoly power in a distinct U.S. market for “personal social networking” services through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC claimed Meta bought nascent rivals to neutralise competitive threats in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, but Meta argued it competed in a broader, dynamic social media market including TikTok and YouTube.​

After a lengthy bench trial, the court held that the FTC failed to prove the existence of a separate PSN market or that Meta held monopoly power in it, and therefore did not reach the question of whether the Instagram and WhatsApp deals were anticompetitive. The court stressed that social media has converged toward AI-driven short-form video, undermining the FTC’s narrow PSN definition, and found no evidence that Meta could profitably impose supracompetitive “prices” given free user access and limited impact of higher ad loads on engagement. Empirical evidence on user switching during outages and shocks (such as TikTok bans) showed meaningful substitutability among platforms, placing Meta’s share of the broader market below monopoly levels and indicating that entry barriers were not prohibitive. The decision underscores that antitrust law protects competition, not individual competitors, especially in fast-evolving digital markets.

EU Antitrust Probe into Deutsche Börse–Nasdaq Coordination

The European Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq breached EU competition rules by coordinating their conduct in the European Economic Area (EEA) in relation to the listing, trading, and clearing of financial derivatives. Both entities are major providers of exchange and post-trade infrastructure in the derivatives sector.

The Commission is concerned that the parties may have entered into agreements or concerted practices not to compete in the EEA and may have engaged in demand allocation, price coordination, and the exchange of commercially sensitive information. If substantiated, such conduct could infringe Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, which prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices. The alleged conduct could fragment markets, distort prices and quality, and undermine the functioning of the EU Single Market. The investigation follows unannounced inspections carried out in September 2024 as part of an own-initiative inquiry into possible collusion in derivatives markets. Within the Deutsche Börse Group, Eurex, the largest derivatives exchange in the EEA, plays a central role in derivatives trading and clearing.