CCI Orders Investigation into PVR INOX’s Pricing Practices in Film Exhibition Market

On 30 September 2025, CCI directed an investigation into PVR INOX Ltd (PVR INOX) following information filed by the Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India (Guild). The Guild alleged that the company’s continued levy of the Virtual Print Fee (VPF) restricts competition in the market for exhibition of films in multiplex theatres in India.

VPF is a charge paid by film producers to multiplex operators and digital cinema service providers for screening films using digital projection systems. It was introduced in 2005 to subsidise the transition from analogue to digital formats. While initially intended as a temporary cost-recovery mechanism, the Guild contended that VPF continued well beyond its purpose, despite full digitisation by 2014, and disproportionately impacted small and medium-sized Indian producers. It was alleged that the fee lacked any connection to a specific service and was applied in a discriminatory manner.

CCI found sufficient grounds to investigate PVR INOX, which accounts for 30% to 43% of multiplex screens and box office revenue in India. It observed that the company exempted Hollywood studios from paying VPF while continuing to charge Indian producers, offered sunset clauses to select large studios (eg. Yash Raj Films and Viacom 18) but denied similar terms to others, and made payment of VPF a condition for film exhibition, thereby limiting access for smaller producers. CCI also noted that PVR INOX failed to demonstrate any specific service provided in exchange for the fee.

CCI also closed proceedings against UFO Moviez India Ltd. and Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt Ltd, who were also named in the complaint. Both entities operate as digital cinema service providers and were alleged to have continued levying VPF and enforcing exclusivity clauses in their agreements with cinema theatre owners. However, CCI noted that these issues had already been addressed in an earlier case this year[1], where both entities were found to have engaged in anti-competitive conduct and were directed to modify their lease agreements to remove such restrictions. As the core concerns had already been resolved, CCI declined to proceed further against them in the present matter.

Business takeaway: The order signals CCI’s growing scrutiny of pricing practices in the entertainment sector, particularly where dominant players impose charges that lack objective justification or result in exclusionary outcomes for smaller producers.

[1] CCI: The Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India Limited v. UFO Moviez India Limited, Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt Ltd and PVR INOX Limited, Case No. 42 of 2023, order dated 30 September 2025