Digital Payment Platform Not Dominant, Competition Case Closed Without Breach of Law.

The Competition Commission concluded that there was no contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, as the alleged dominance of the digital payment platform in the relevant market was not established. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the request for interim relief under Section 33 was denied. The Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the Informant.

---

---

Issues:
Alleged abuse of dominant position by a digital payment platform under the Competition Act, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Filing of Information and Allegations:
The Information was filed against the digital payment platform by Ayudha Foundation, alleging abuse of dominant position under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. The platform, OP, provides various services including online recharges and bill payments with cashback offers.

2. Imposition of Additional Charges:
The Informant claimed that OP started imposing 20% additional charges on using the digital wallet without providing complete details in the GST bill. The Informant also alleged that OP applied these charges arbitrarily.

3. Restrictions on Wallet Usage:
The Informant argued that OP's wallet functions as a closed wallet with limitations on bill payments, preventing full utilization of the wallet amount. This restriction was considered a violation of the Act by the Informant.

4. Prayers for Relief:
The Informant sought appropriate relief from the Commission if OP was found in violation of the Act. Additionally, interim relief was requested under Section 33 of the Act, urging for immediate financial sanctions against OP.

5. Subsequent Submissions:
The Informant made subsequent submissions highlighting OP's modifications to its cashback policy, wallet usage cap, and mandatory subscription service, demonstrating continued misuse of dominant market position.

6. Commission's Analysis:
The Commission noted the Informant's grievances regarding the imposition of extra fees without complete disclosure. It was observed that the Informant's concerns fell under the examination of Section 4 of the Act, related to abuse of dominance.

7. Relevant Market Determination:
The Commission delineated the relevant market as 'the market for digital payment platforms in India' despite the Informant not specifying it. However, OP's dominance in the market was not established, as the Informant failed to provide evidence of such dominance.

8. Conclusion and Decision:
As OP's dominance in the relevant market was not proven, the Commission concluded that no contravention of Section 4 of the Act was established. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and relief under Section 33 was denied. The Secretary was directed to communicate the decision to the Informant.

---