The CCI observed that InstaAstro failed to provide data or statistics to substantiate its claims that Astrotalk was abusing its dominance
The bench, headed by CCI chairperson Ravneet Kaur, noted that antitrust allegations cannot be established solely by quoting media reports
InstaAstro had filed a complaint with the CCI alleging that Astrotalk was engaging in anticompetitive practices, poaching consultants and spreading false information
The Competition Commission of India has dismissed a petition filed by InstaAstro, alleging abuse of dominance by online astrology platform Astrotalk.
The competition watchdog, in an order, observed that the “informant” (rival platform InstaAstro) failed to provide data or statistics to substantiate its claims that Astrotalk was abusing its dominance. While quashing the complaint, the CCI also said that multiple well-entrenched competitors already exist in the market, which imposes competitive restrictions on Astrotalk.
The bench, comprising CCI chairperson Ravneet Kaur and members Anil Agrawal, Shweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, noted that antitrust allegations cannot be established solely by quoting media reports.
In its complaint, rival platform InstaAstro alleged that Astrotalk was engaging in practices that allegedly harmed competition in the market.
The complainant also claimed that Astrotalk was poaching its consultant (also “upskilled” by InstaAstro) by offering higher remuneration, up to as high as INR 5 Lakh a month. This, InstaAstro said, led to financial losses for the company.
InstaAstro also claimed that Astrotalk signed restrictive agreements with the poached consultants, prohibiting them from re-engaging with InstaAstro or other competitors. The complaint also alleged that Astrotalk spread “false news” to “induce” consultants of rival companies to leave their firms and break their contracts.
InstaAstro also cited Astrotalk CEO Puneet Gupta’s statements on social media platforms, saying that the startup held 80% of the market share. This, InstaAstro said, implied abuse of dominance.
“… The Informant has stated that Mr. Puneet Gupta, CEO of Astrotalk, has himself claimed on various social media outlets that Astrotalk occupies 80% market share in the segment… It is further averred that by poaching astrology consultants by offering them better remuneration, Astrotalk is reducing competition in the relevant market and therefore its conduct is in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act,” read the order.
Accordingly, InstaAstro urged the CCI to impose a penalty on Astrotalk and issue directions to the latter to refrain from indulging in anti-competitive practices. It also sought compensation for itself and other players in the segment impacted by the alleged anticompetitive practices of Astrotalk.
It also sought interim relief in the form of directions to Astrotalk to stop poaching consultants and refrain from entering into any agreements which adversely affect competition.
What Did The CCI Rule?
After hearing the case, the CCI quashed the complaint and ruled that there was no prima facie case against Astrotalk for violating Section 3 and Section 4 of the Competition Act.
“… The Commission is of the view that there exists no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and/or 4 of the Act against Astrotalk and therefore, the matter be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises, and the same is also rejected,” the order read.
On poaching allegations, the CCI said that the consultants are free to provide their services to any entity as per their discretion. It, however, added that such cases do not fall under the ambit of Section 3 and 4, under which InstaAstro filed the complaint.
The Commission also said that the lack of data or statistics submitted by the informant undermined its ability to demonstrate any abuse of market power by Astrotalk.
On the 80% market share allegations, the CCI said, “… The commission notes that the informant has based dominance of Astrotalk only on the media statements of its CEO claiming to occupy 80% of the market. The Commission is of the view that dominance of any entity cannot be solely established on the basis of such media statements which are, more often than not, made to project a better standing of the entity in the market. Accordingly, the dominance of Astrotalk… is not established in the delineated relevant market”.
Notably, this is not the first time that Astrotalk has landed in a legal soup. Earlier this year, another rival Astroyogi sued Astrotalk, alleging unauthorised use of its trademark and branding elements. Astroyogi alleged that Astrotalk used its trademark within various horoscope categories, resulting in overlap with the services offered by it.
