CCI Finds Intel’s India-Specific Warranty Policy Abusive; Imposes Penalty 

On 12 February 2026, the CCI held Intel Corporation (Intel) guilty of abusing its dominant position in the market for boxed microprocessors for desktop PCs in India.[1] The order arose from an information filed by M/s Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Matrix), a Delhi-based IT trader engaged in parallel imports of Intel products, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.  Matrix submitted that it imported Intel’s boxed microprocessors from authorised overseas distributors and sold them domestically at competitive prices. The dispute arose after Intel introduced an India-specific warranty policy on 25 April 2016, restricting warranty services in India to products purchased from its authorised Indian distributors.

The CCI first assessed Intel’s market position and concluded that the company held a dominant position during 2016-2021. Intel owns proprietary rights over the widely used x86 processor architecture, and PC manufacturers and distributors are significantly dependent on its processors. The CCI also noted significant entry barriers, such as intellectual property protection, high research and development costs, and economies of scale.

On merits, the CCI held that the India-specific warranty policy imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i). Unlike policies in several other jurisdictions, Intel’s Indian policy denied in-country warranty service for genuine processors purchased through authorised overseas distributors and instead redirected customers to the country of purchase. The CCI rejected Intel’s justification that the policy was necessary to prevent counterfeit products, noting that Intel already had mechanisms to verify authenticity.

The CCI further observed that the policy indirectly compelled traders and consumers to purchase microprocessors through Intel’s authorised Indian distributors. Evidence on record showed significant price differences between imported products and those sold through authorised channels, in some instances exceeding 40%. The CCI found that the policy restricted consumer choice and resulted in denial of market access to parallel importers, thereby contravening Sections 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c).

The decision has also sparked debate on the scope of discrimination under Section 4.  As such it may be argued that discrimination should be assessed based on its effect on competition within the relevant market rather than comparisons with policies in other jurisdictions. Since the geographic market in this case was India, cross-border differences alone may not establish anti-competitive discrimination.  Global companies regularly adopt different policies across jurisdictions due to legitimate business considerations such as regulatory environments, distribution structures, or grey market risks. Given the adverse ruling by the CCI in this case, such geographically differentiated policies by a dominant enterprise would now have to be examined from a competition law perspective.

Considering the duration of the conduct, the CCI initially determined the penalty at 8% of Intel’s average relevant turnover. However, after taking into account mitigating factors, including the dynamic nature of the technology sector, Intel’s cooperation during the investigation, and the withdrawal of the warranty policy from 1 April 2024, the CCI imposed a reduced penalty of INR 27.38 crores under Section 27(b).

Business Takeaway: The decision signals that commercially framed policies may be treated as abusive if they indirectly compel customers to transact only through authorised channels, especially if there are geographically differentiated policies followed by the enterprise. Companies with dominant market positions must ensure that post-sale restrictions do not distort competitive pricing, restrict lawful imports, or disadvantage independent distributors. The order also highlights an emerging compliance risk: geographic differentiation in warranty or after-sales policies may attract scrutiny if it adversely affects competition in India; therefore, dominant firms should carefully review such policies to mitigate potential intervention by the CCI.

[1] CCI: In Re: Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Intel Corporation, Case No. 05 of 2019, order dated 12 February 2026.