Bid-rigging or rate-fixing? CCI’s investigation into ad giants deepens

In a dramatic turn of events, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has launched an investigation into several major advertising agencies over allegations of price-fixing and bid-rigging. The raids, which began on March 18, 2025, targeted approximately ten locations across major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Gurugram.

The CCI has launched an investigation into several major advertising agencies over allegations of price fixing and bid rigging. The raids, which began on March 18, 2025, targeted approximately ten locations across major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Gurugram.

At the heart of these allegations is the suspicion that these agencies colluded with broadcasters to manipulate advertising rates and discounts, undermining fair competition.

Shryeshth R. Sharma, Partner at SKV Law Offices, explains that the core of the allegations revolves around price fixing, where agencies are suspected of coordinating with broadcasters to establish opaque rebate structures. “Such practices could violate Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits agreements that restrict competition or manipulate market pricing," he notes. Bid-rigging, a serious offense under Indian competition law, is explicitly prohibited by Section (3)(3)(d) of the Act.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told the Lok Sabha on Monday that, as of March 13, 2025, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had investigated 35 cartel cases across various sectors over the past five financial years. To enhance cartel investigations, the Hub-and-Spoke mechanism was added to Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, through the Amendment Act of 2023.

The CCI's approach to such cases has been firm, as seen in previous rulings like Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI and Western Coalfields Ltd. v. SSV Coal Carriers Pvt Ltd. These decisions have consistently held that coordinated bidding patterns constitute bid-rigging, even without direct evidence of collusion. Instead, suspicious bid patterns and pre-tender meetings can suffice to establish anti-competitive conduct.

Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, points out that proving collusion is inherently complex due to the need for direct or circumstantial evidence showing intent and agreement between parties. “This investigation is likely to prompt structural changes in media buying, with agencies adopting more transparent practices and advertisers demanding greater disclosure to protect their interests,” he says. The investigation may take 1–2 years, depending on the cooperation of the parties and the volume of material seized.

As the investigation unfolds, it could lead to broader regulatory scrutiny and reforms within the industry. The CCI's firm approach to preserving competitive processes suggests that this case may have far-reaching implications for the advertising landscape in India.

Interestingly, given that the CCI has not made a public statement yet, there is still some opacity to what exactly the investigation entails.

Offering a converse opinion, Abhishek Singh Baghel, Partner, DSK Legal, says, “There is no allegation of bid rigging in the concerned case. As per the information available in the public domain, the case relates to fixing of advertisement rates and discount mechanisms.”

Bid rigging or collusive bidding relates to an act of competitors agreeing to eliminate or reduce competition in a tender process by way of - fixing bid prices, withdrawing from tender process, submitting cover/ token bids, etc.

Which is why Lagna Panda, Counsel at P&A Law Offices, highlights that anti-competitive agreements can take various forms, including price-fixing, market allocation, and bid-rigging. “In cases where bids were made pursuant to an agreement to reduce competition, such conduct can be considered bid-rigging,” she explains.

The CCI can impose penalties of up to 10% of a company's relevant turnover or three times its profit for each year of continuance of the agreement. Individuals involved can also face penalties of up to 10% of their total income.