On November 28, 2017, CCI dismissed allegations of anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance against skill and talent development firm, NIIT Limited (‘NIIT’), with respect to franchise agreements.Separate complaints were filed by NIIT’s three Hyderabad-based franchisees (‘Franchisees’), which were engaged in the business of provision of computer education and training services. Since all the three complaints were against NIIT involving ‘substantially similar’ allegations, CCI passed a common order. The Franchisees alleged inter alia: (i) that contrary to the terms agreed in the franchisee agreement, NIIT was directly approaching schools located within the territories of the Franchisees and undercutting them by offering the same courses at highly discounted prices; (ii) that NIIT follows a differential pricing pattern for its consumers in metro and non-metro areas; and (iii) a differential revenue sharing model for franchisees located in metro and non-metro areas.In this instant case, CCI defined the relevant market to be ‘market for the provision of computer education and training services in India’ since computer and IT skill training requires special knowledge on the subject as compared to skill training services in other professional and non-professional areas in terms of its characteristics, prices, and end use, as well as such training courses could be availed across India.With respect to the issue of abuse of dominance, CCI held that apart from NIIT, there are many other companies operating in the relevant market offering similar courses, and thus NIIT was not a dominant player and therefore could not violate Section 4 of the Act.While dismissing allegations of anti-competitive conduct under Section 3 of the Act, CCI noted that the prevailing competition has compelled NIIT to venture into online mode of delivery through its online learning portals. It further noted that the differential pricing for metro and non-metro areas was not arbitrary and could be explained on the basis of various factors like lower awareness and lack of affordability by students in non-metro areas, differences in marketing responsibility, and job placements.

*Case Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of 2017.