---
title: "Competition Law Concerning The Film Industry In India"
date: 2019-06-24
author: "Deiya Goswami"
url: https://ksandk.com/competition/competition-law-concerning-the-film-industry-in-india/
---

# Competition Law Concerning The Film Industry In India

Posted On - 24 June, 2019 • By - Deiya Goswami

In  

the entertainment Industry, cinema remains amongst the most popular form of art  

and in many countries appears to be one of the most widely practiced cultural  

activity. Every day there are technological advancements and much is yet to  

come in this regard.

Over  

more than one hundred years after its conception, a critical period has been  

reached where, different questions from those seen so far are likely to be  

raised as far as competition is concerned, questions linked to the horizontal  

concentration and vertical integration of companies operating in film  

distribution markets along with the promotion of development of the industry.

The  

Indian Film industry in order to discipline itself had set up self-disciplinary  

association or agencies. The associations are either societies or companies  

under Section 8 of the Companies Act. These associations or companies formulate  

bye-laws and work as a dispute resolution agency for disputes between  

exhibitors, producers and the distributors/exhibitors. In this manner, the  

pecuniary interests of the exhibitors were protected.  This is being done firstly, by registering  

the name of the film with one of the associations. Such registration protects  

two films from having the same release at the same time.

Secondly,  

whenever a producer enters into an agreement with a distributor for a certain  

zone, the same needs to be registered by an association. This is being done  

with the idea that a producer does not sell the same movie rights to another  

distributor in the same area to obtain further finance. Moreover, when the film  

being produced involves a large amount of finance, another distributor is  

usually appointed for a zone or two distributors would form a joint venture to  

finance the film.

Now,  

with the advent of new technology, migration of the Indian community to  

different countries and due to other such reasons, the demand for Indian films  

extended in various countries. This created the opportunity for the producers  

to sell the rights in the entire world, DTH and satellite rights, internet  

rights etc. of the film. The new technology also led to an increase in breach  

of piracy and reduction in the earnings of the producers. These factors have  

led to the closure of many single screen exhibitors all over India.

India  

is one of the largest producer of movies in the world with over 1,300 films  

released each year. With respect to theatre density, however, India ranks  

poorly with 12 screens per million as opposed to 117 per million in the USA. As  

a result of this huge infrastructural deficit, an industry survey estimates a  

poor volume of 4 billion ticket sales each year across 12,000 odd theatres. In  

fact, that has led to the trend has emerged where film digital rights (such as  

satellite, home video, VOD, PPV, DTH and webcast) are being negotiated and sold  

much ahead of the theatre release. One might argue that simulations release  

could enable easy piracy, which would eat up revenues from legitimate streams.  

This view fails for the simple reason that consumers of ‘pirated’ (for lack of  

better word) goods do not appreciate pricing mechanism of the legitimate  

market. Between picking up a DVD at a street corner for a mere fifty rupees,  

and purchasing it from an authorized dealer (if there is one in their town) for  

five times that amount, no consumers would bother purchasing an original disc.

One  

such incident is where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) intervened  

after receiving information about anti-competitive practices against certain  

film distributors and exhibitors of blockbuster film, Vishwaroopam in relation  

to the simultaneous direct-to-home (DTH) release by actor-producer Kamal  

Hassan. Since the contents of the film was controversial so was initially  

banned in one state but since the dispute was of a manner that had a wider  

implication for the entire film industry so Raj Kamal Films approached the CCI  

for a ruling on the Association for restraint of trade.

The  

question that the CCI had to answer was upto what extent a competition  

regulator such as CCI can intervene in disputes within an artistic industry. In  

this information before the CCI, it was alleged that there was an abuse of  

dominance and cartelization against the film distributors and exhibitors,  

resulting in the disruption of the DTH release. In response the distributors  

have stated that Hassan has violated an informal understanding in the industry  

to release films exclusively on theatres. Although Section 3(5) of the  

Competition Act excludes agreements made in furtherance of exploitation of an  

IP right. As long as the terms of license are ‘reasonable’, IP owners are free  

to impose any measure. In other words, an informal pact for exclusivity in  

distribution of films does not stand valid before a court of law.

**The Competition Commission17 ruled as follows –**

‘The  

facts discussed above prima facie show that the resolution of OP was in the  

nature of an agreement among the members of the association and was intended to  

limit and control the market of exhibition of movies as well as innovative use  

of technical development in exhibition of feature films and thus, prima facie  

appeared to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.’

In  

Hassan’s information to CCI the distributors’ and exhibitors’ associations did  

eventually succeed in deferring the DTH release with their threats to boycott  

screening. This decision to boycott is likely to violate the following  

provisions of the Competition Act :

•         Refusal to deal: The threat of the  

distributors has an effect of restricting the ‘classes of persons to whom goods  

are sold or from whom goods are brought’ which is prohibited under sub-clause  

(d) of Section 3(4).

•         Denial of market access: Section 4(2)  

(c) prohibits dominant entities from indulging in ‘practices resulting in  

denial of market access in any manner’. It is likely that the DG might find a  

valid claim against the associations which control theatre distribution in  

Tamil Nadu for denying home-video market to the actor.

In  

a nutshell, the cultural and linguistic issues limits the applicability of the  

competition laws to the entertainment industry. Also the products of the  

entertainment industry specially films and cinemas are singular goods and the  

CCI does not have the technical know-how to assess the non-market consequence  

of the market competition. Another problem is that the cultural segment focuses  

on a long term individual consumer whereas the market argument focuses on short  

term individual consumer welfare effects.

Moreover,  

recently in 2017, the CCI has passed decision in order to provide further  

clarity and to emphasise the position in certain national and regional trade  

associations of film artists and producers for engaging in practices of  

controlling/limiting the supply of services and market sharing. That Mr. Vipul  

Shah, the producer of films, filed an information against Artists’  

Associations, comprising the All India Film Employees Confederation, Federation  

of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) and its affiliated associations as well  

as Producers’ Associations, comprising the Indian Motion Picture Producers  

Association, the Film and Television Producers Guild of India, and the Indian  

Film and Television Producers Council stating that there was Memorandum of  

Understanding (MoU) regarding wages and rates of member artists and there were  

restrictions on engaging non-members also there was a committee which was  

entrusted with the vigilance of the said MoU. 

The  

main contention in this case was that such acts have been held to be in  

contravention of Sections 3(3) (b) and 3(3) (c) read with Section 3(1) of the  

Competition Act, 2002. The CCI in this case reiterated the decision of Supreme Court  

and observed that the even trade unions fall within the preview of the scrutiny  

of antitrust laws in India, although they are not directly the part of trade  

unions but are part of the production chain. Further there was a clarity  

provided that under the provided circumstance, where these bodies acted as  

operating member in the trade union does not fall within the horizontal  

agreement.  

### **Conclusion**

To conclude, the market concerned should be defined and the degree of concentration of that distribution activities needs to be determined. Secondly, it must be found whether there are regulations or practices which prevent market entry. Further such barriers co-exist with high concentration, there will be high risk of exercise of market power, which will make further horizontal concentration and, in some cases, vertical integration, threatening to competition. Also in a diversified country like India, where there are more than 19,500 languages and 22 official languages the Competition Commission will often be confronted by cultural and linguistic disputes presented before CCI. Further CCI has to formulate clear-cut rules that can be applied to the entertainment industry. 

### Contributed By – Deiya Goswami  
Designation – Associate

#### [King Stubb & Kasiva](https://ksandk.com/),  
Advocates & Attorneys

[Click Here to Get in Touch](https://ksandk.com/ksk/contact-us/)

[New Delhi](https://g.page/king-stubb-and-kasiva) | [Mumbai](https://g.page/king-stubb-kasiva-mumbai) | [Bangalore](https://g.page/king-stubb-kasiva-bangalore) | [Chennai](https://g.page/king-stubb-kasiva-chennai) | [Hyderabad](https://g.page/king-stubb-kasiva-hyderabad) | Kochi  
Tel: [+91 11 41032969](tel:+911141032969) | Email: [info@ksandk.com](mailto:info@ksandk.com)

---

## Office Locations                                                                                                                                                     
                                               
  - [New Delhi](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-delhi/) (HQ): +91-11-41318190 | info@ksandk.com                                                    
  - [Mumbai](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-mumbai/): 3 offices (Nariman Point, Lower Parel, Andheri) | mumbai@ksandk.com
  - [Bangalore](https://ksandk.com/locations/top-corporate-law-firm-in-bangalore/): bangalore@ksandk.com                                                                  
  - [Chennai](https://ksandk.com/locations/chennai/): chennai@ksandk.com                                                                                                  
  - [Hyderabad](https://ksandk.com/locations/hyderabad/): hyderabad@ksandk.com                                                                                            
  - [Pune](https://ksandk.com/locations/pune/): pune@ksandk.com                                                                                                           
  - [Kochi](https://ksandk.com/locations/kochi/): kochi@ksandk.com
                                                                                                                                                                          
  ## Contact                                   
                                                                                                                                                                          
  - [Contact Page](https://ksandk.com/contact-us/)
  - General: info@ksandk.com | +91-11-41318190
  - WhatsApp: +91-7428567444
  - [Privacy Statement](https://ksandk.com/privacy-statement/)                                                                                                            
  - [Terms of Use](https://ksandk.com/terms-of-use/)