Other guidelines on vertical restrictions can be found in the Commission`s guidelines on vertical restrictions, which contain guidelines in Swedish legislation. In addition, an analysis of the company`s position that imposes vertical restriction is inherent in the ICC`s assessment of market lockdown (see questions 16 and 17). The Competition Act does not provide a framework for prior notification of an agreement to the ICC (or another authority). As a result, companies must conduct their own competition assessments of vertical restrictions (and, if necessary, with the assistance of a lawyer). The Competition Act 2002 (Competition Act) is India`s most important vertical restriction law. In addition, certain sectoral laws (such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997, the Electricity Act 2003 and the Oil and Natural Gas Regulation Act 2006) allow certain specially created sectoral regulators to enforce rules to promote competition in their respective sectors, which may cover the regulation of vertical restrictions. , particularly for telecommunications, electricity or oil and natural gas. Vertical agreements are therefore considered by competition authorities to be less likely to lead to anti-competitive practices. Although competition problems may arise, where a contracting party has significant market power, or if there are a number of similar agreements that, together, could have an impact on the market. In 2018, a series of closure decisions and an ICC infringement order were accused of vertical anti-competitive agreements. One of the ICC`s most notable decisions has been to dismiss accusations of algorithmic collusion and maintain resale prices against Uber and Ola – two major technology platforms for aggregating taxis in India. See question 19 for the ICC`s key findings in this decision.
The restriction of the customer to which a buyer is authorized to sell a product may be prohibited as an „exclusive distribution agreement“ or „refusal of contract“ if this causes or is likely to be the cause of an AAEC in India. For example, Autopart`s CCI has sanctioned several OEMs for entering into vertical agreements with their dealers, preventing dealers from delivering original spare parts to third parties. At Vivo, the ICC found no objection to a clause preventing distributors from making sales to corporate customers without the seller`s prior approval or written consent. Not only were there no documentary documents supporting these allegations, but the ICC also seems to have understood that this restriction was necessary to guarantee the authenticity of the sale of the business (rather than preventing it altogether). If for commercial reasons (for example. B to introduce a new product or to maintain the integrity of the distribution channel) justify the imposition of such a restriction, the ICC could generally take into account the efficiency gains resulting from these restrictions, as well as other factors that may reduce the likelihood of market lockdown (e.g. B, low market share or limiting the duration of the restriction). Are selective distribution systems more legitimate when they cover certain types of products? If so, what types of products and why? To what extent is a private application possible? Can non-parties to vertically restricted agreements obtain declarable judgments or claims for omission and seek damages? Can the parties make their own claims? What remedial measures are available? How long should a company expect private execution? The ICC has the power to penalize itself directly by penalizing companies and does not have to go to court to enforce its decisions.