Consumer Issues Relating Misleading Advertisement Not Covered Under Competition Law: CCI
The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag in a complaint against Woodman Electronics held that allegations concerning misleading advertising and non-disclosure of the Country of Origin (COO) by Woodman Electronics India Private Limited do not fall within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002. Brief...
The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag in a complaint against Woodman Electronics held that allegations concerning misleading advertising and non-disclosure of the Country of Origin (COO) by Woodman Electronics India Private Limited do not fall within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002.
Brief Facts of the Case
Woodman Electronics India Private Limited, an Opposite Party, received an anonymous complaint lodged under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. The informant argued that the Opposite Party was selling Chinese Android head units without indicating Country of Origin and with misleading marketing claims like “India Ka Apna Brand.” Such practice would cause deception among the consumers and would affect the competition by violating Section 4 of the Act. The Informant claimed these acts created market dominance, at a disadvantage to its competitors; Sony, Blaupunkt, and Pioneer.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The Opposite Party submitted that it was a rather small player in the competitive market of car audio, that includes global brands such as Sony, Panasonic, Blaupunkt, and JBL. The opposite party denied holding any dominant position in the said market.
Observation by the Commission
The Commission found the car stereo market to be highly competitive, with the presence of both established global players and unorganized players. There was no evidence to even remotely suggest that the Opposite Party was holding a dominant position. Misleading claims and suppression of details about COO were held as consumer issues, which fall outside the Competition Act. The Commission cited relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for such complaints. It concluded that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Act was made out. Hence, the case was concluded under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission clearly mentioned that Sections 2(47) and 36A, referred by the Informant, are not in place under the Competition Act. Moreover, issues concerning misleading advertisements fall under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint in question, holding that no dominant position was involved, nor was any contravention found to have occurred under Section 4. Further, the Commission allowed confidentiality over the identity of the Informant for three years.
Case Name: XYZ Vs. Woodman Electronics India Private Limited
Case No: 24 of 2024