Cartels distort markets, harm consumers, and stifle competition, and the Indian government is committed to eliminating them. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced in the Lok Sabha that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has investigated 35 cartel cases over the past five years.
Last week, the CCI conducted raids at leading media agencies, including Dentsu, Omnicom, Havas, Madison, IPG, GroupM, and Publicis, as well as industry bodies such as the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), and the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF). These searches were carried out over allegations of media cartelization, signaling heightened scrutiny on the sector.
To enhance cartel investigations, the Hub-and-Spoke mechanism was incorporated into Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, through the Amendment Act of 2023. This provision states that an enterprise, an association of enterprises, or a person not engaged in an identical or similar trade may still be presumed to be part of an anti-competitive agreement if they participate in or intend to further such an agreement.
However, a week after the raid, media agencies are trying to seek clarity and are awaiting further communication from the anti-trust watchdog. A top industry leader said, “We are yet to be communicated about further procedure. No official communication has been made. We are still awaiting clarity.”
A senior industry executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed the importance of a structured study. “CCI should conduct a market research study on the advertising industry before any intervention. During their investigation, officials were asking basic questions about industry guidelines and regulatory norms. A thorough study would help them understand the perspectives of media agencies, broadcasters, and industry bodies, ensuring that their probe remains balanced and informed.”
CCI officials during the raids were probing the role of industry bodies AAAI, ISA and IBDF in an alleged media cartelization case. The officials questioned media agency executives around the guidelines set by industry bodies related to commission and price fixing.
CCI’s Successful Crackdowns
In the ongoing probe of alleged media cartelization, multiple sources claimed that Dentsu filed the leniency petition with the CCI leading to uncovering the matter.
Read more: CCI raids: Did Dentsu blow the whistle on India’s alleged media cartel?
According to CCI lawyers, the first-ever leniency order by the CCI was issued in January 2017 in a case involving bid rigging for tenders related to brushless DC fans for Indian Railways. The leniency applicant received a penalty reduction of up to 75%. Since then, several industries have witnessed successful cartel busting under the leniency regime:
Broadcasting Cartel (Globecast and Essel Shyam Communications Ltd.) – The CCI found bid rigging in tenders for sporting event broadcasts. A leniency application exposed the cartel.
Dry-Cell Batteries Cartel – Panasonic secured 100% immunity in three separate cases.
Beer Cartel Case – AB InBev received a 100% penalty reduction.
Electric Power Steering Cartel – NSK Limited Japan and its Indian subsidiary, Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd., secured full immunity for exposing bid rigging.
Leniency Cases in India
The Finance Minister further stated that the Commission has a dedicated division for trend analysis and research across various economic sectors to detect potential anti-competitive activities.
The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, introduced the concept of “lesser penalty plus” under Section 46 of the Act. On February 20, 2024, the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2024, were notified, replacing the 2009 regulations and introducing the “lesser penalty plus” (LPP) mechanism. This incentivizes an existing lesser penalty applicant in a cartel case to provide full, truthful, and critical disclosures about another undiscovered cartel.
India’s leniency program has proven highly effective in exposing cartel activities. In 2022, the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line) exposed a cartel that collusively fixed freight rates for maritime motor vehicle transport services to Indian Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). NYK Line secured full immunity, while other cartel participants, such as Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., were fined. Similarly, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) disclosed a decade-long beer price-fixing cartel in 2021, avoiding penalties, while United Breweries and Carlsberg faced fines.
Read more: CCI raids: Leniency Program blows the lid off media cartelization
Neelambera Sandeepan, Partner at Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, emphasizes CCI’s effectiveness in tackling cartelization through leniency applications. “CCI has detected several cartels through leniency applications. For instance, in the Dry-Cell Battery Cartel, a whistleblower application by Panasonic led the CCI to uncover price coordination and supply limitation. Similarly, in the beer segment, AB InBev’s leniency application exposed a cartel, and CCI also held the All India Brewers’ Association liable for serving as a platform for exchanging sensitive information between competitors.”
Role of Industry Bodies in Cartelization
Harsh Malhotra, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs and Minister of State for Road Transport and Highways, informed that the CCI has initiated investigations in 49 cases under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, over the last three financial years (2021-22 to 2024-25, up to March 13, 2025).
Responding to questions from BJP Kanpur MP Ramesh Awasthi and former UP Chief Minister Jagdambika Pal, Malhotra noted that 21 cases related to cartelization in sectors such as civil aviation, financial services, health and pharma, iron and steel, power, and railways have been sent for investigation over the past three years.
Of these, investigation reports have been received for 11 cases, while 10 remain under probe by the Director General. So far, only one case has seen a final order, while the remaining 10 cases are under review by the Commission.
Elaborating on industry associations, despite their regulatory role, sometimes facilitating cartelization by enabling price coordination and restricting competition, Aniket Ghosh, Competition Lawyer explains, “Typically, cartels form between competitors. However, industry bodies, being common platforms for competitors, can act as facilitators. They can enable the exchange of commercially sensitive information and encourage coordinated market behavior, leading to anti-trust violations.”
Several cases in India highlight the role of industry bodies in cartelization. In the 2021 Beer Cartel Case, the All India Brewers’ Association was fined for aiding price-fixing among brewers. Similarly, in the 2018 Dry-Cell Battery Cartel, the Association of Indian Dry Cell Manufacturers facilitated price coordination between companies like Panasonic, Eveready, and Indo-National (Nippo).
Ensuring Confidentiality in Leniency Applications
Confidentiality is a cornerstone of an effective leniency program. The CCI maintains strict confidentiality regarding whistleblower identities throughout investigations. However, in special cases, the Director General may disclose details to other investigated parties with CCI’s prior approval. Once proceedings are complete, the CCI publicly discloses the leniency applicant’s identity along with penalty reductions.
Akshayy S. Nanda, Partner at Saraf and Partners, underscores the importance of strong protections for whistleblowers. “To ensure the success of leniency programs, anti-trust bodies offer robust protections to petitioners, both in terms of maintaining confidentiality and delivering fair and timely orders.”
Leniency programs have played a crucial role in exposing major cartels worldwide. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has uncovered several cartel cases using its leniency framework. Competition lawyer Aniket Ghosh highlights one of DOJ’s biggest cases—the Auto Parts Cartel, which stemmed from a leniency application. “Over 30 Japanese firms, including Yazaki, Bridgestone, and Mitsubishi Electric, colluded to fix auto component prices for U.S. automakers like Ford and GM. A leniency application—likely from Denso—sparked DOJ raids in 2010, unraveling the conspiracy.”
Read more: Overnight raids and sleepless CEOs: How CCI cornered media giants
The investigation led to $2.9 billion in fines, including Yazaki’s $470 million penalty (2012) and Bridgestone’s $425 million fine (2014). More than 60 executives faced convictions.
Similar cases have occurred in Europe. In the EU Truck Cartel Case (2016), MAN Truck & Bus disclosed a cartel, leading to a €2.93 billion penalty for other participants, including Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, and DAF. These cases highlight how leniency programs significantly contribute to competition law enforcement.