Dominance Cannot Solely Be Established By Media Statements: CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Astrotalk

Brief Facts of the Case

InstaAstro Technology Private Limited (Informant) lodged a complaint against Astrotalk Services Private Limited (Opposite Party) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informant is running an online astrology portal that provides services in the form of tarot reading, vastu, vedic astrology, etc. It claimed that Astrotalk was poaching the trained consultants and employees from the Informant by giving them more remuneration, sometimes up to Rs. 5,00,000 per month. The Informant further argued that Astrotalk also prompted consultants to cancel their agreements with it and its competitors. This caused disruptions in the markets. The Informant pleaded for declarations of contravention, penalties, and interim relief in order to prevent Astrotalk from poaching its consultants and entering into restrictive agreements with them.

Contentions of Astrotalk

Astrotalk contended that the movement of consultants was a matter of individual choice and contractual freedom, falling outside the scope of competition law. It argued that consultants had the right to provide their services to any platform offering better opportunities. Regarding dominance, Astrotalk refuted the Informant's claims, emphasizing that the allegations relied solely on media statements by its CEO, which were insufficient to establish market dominance.

Observation by the Commission

The Commission examined the allegations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. On the claims under Section 3, it noted that the alleged poaching and contractual issues primarily fell under contract law and not competition law. It stated that consultants were free to choose their affiliations and their movement to other platforms did not constitute anti-competitive conduct. For the allegations under Section 4, the Commission delineated the relevant market as “provision of astrology-related goods and services through online applications in India.” It observed that the Informant failed to provide data or statistics to substantiate Astrotalk's dominance in this market. The Commission observed that there were other competing platforms, including Astrosage, Astroyogi, Guruji, and Clickastro, which operated in the market and therefore imposed competitive constraints on Astrotalk. The Commission found that dominance could not be established based on media statements alone. It was held that no case for abuse of dominance under Section 4 arose without concrete evidence of dominance. The Commission closed the case by emphasizing that the claims involved mostly contractual issues rather than anti-competitive practices.

Case Name: InstaAstro Technology Private Limited Vs. Astrotalk Services Private Limited

Case No: 22 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Order