Astrotalk Cleared of Abuse of Dominance Allegations by CCI

CCI Dismisses InstaAstro’s Abuse of Dominance Complaint Against Astrotalk

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a petition filed by InstaAstro, an online astrology platform, alleging abuse of dominance by its rival, Astrotalk. The competition regulator concluded that InstaAstro failed to substantiate its claims with data or evidence, thereby quashing the complaint.

Key Allegations by InstaAstro

InstaAstro alleged that Astrotalk engaged in practices that harmed competition, including:

1. Poaching Consultants:
   • InstaAstro claimed that Astrotalk lured its consultants—whom InstaAstro had upskilled—by offering lucrative remuneration, reportedly up to INR 5 Lakh per month.
   • The alleged poaching resulted in financial losses for InstaAstro.
2. Restrictive Agreements:
   • Astrotalk was accused of signing contracts with poached consultants, preventing them from re-engaging with InstaAstro or other competitors.
3. Spreading False Information:
   • InstaAstro claimed Astrotalk spread misleading information to induce consultants from rival firms to break their contracts.
4. Market Share Misrepresentation:
   • InstaAstro cited statements by Astrotalk CEO Puneet Gupta, claiming an 80% market share, as evidence of dominance and alleged abuse of power.

Based on these allegations, InstaAstro requested the CCI to impose penalties, prevent anti-competitive practices, and award compensation for losses incurred.

CCI’s Observations and Ruling

The CCI dismissed InstaAstro’s complaint, citing the following key reasons:

1. Lack of Data and Evidence:

• InstaAstro failed to provide substantive evidence, such as market data or statistics, to demonstrate Astrotalk’s alleged dominance or abuse of power.
• Allegations based on media reports or CEO statements were deemed insufficient to establish dominance.

2. No Market Dominance Established:

• The CCI ruled that claims of an 80% market share, made by Astrotalk’s CEO on social media, could not be used to definitively prove dominance in the market.
• The commission stated such statements are often made to project a favorable image and do not qualify as evidence of market control.

3. Consultant Freedom:

• On the issue of poaching, the CCI noted that consultants are free to offer their services to any entity as per their discretion.
• These allegations were not considered violations under Section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, which govern anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominance.

4. Competitive Market Conditions:

• The presence of multiple established competitors in the market limits Astrotalk’s ability to dominate or control the sector.

Final Verdict

The CCI concluded there was no prima facie evidence of contravention under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Competition Act. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Implications for the Market

1. Clearer Guidelines for Market Dominance Cases:

• The decision reinforces the importance of data-backed evidence when alleging abuse of dominance.
• Media statements or anecdotal claims alone cannot substantiate antitrust violations.

2. Consultant Autonomy:

• The ruling underscores the autonomy of professionals in choosing their engagements, affirming their freedom to work across competitors.

3. Competitive Dynamics in Astrology Platforms:

• With multiple players in the sector, including InstaAstro, Astrotalk, and others, the market remains competitive, limiting the risk of monopolistic practices.

A Pattern of Legal Challenges

This is not the first legal controversy involving Astrotalk. Earlier this year, Astroyogi, another rival, accused Astrotalk of unauthorized use of its trademark and branding elements. The case highlighted overlaps in horoscope services offered by both platforms.

The CCI’s dismissal of InstaAstro’s complaint highlights the need for substantial evidence in antitrust cases. While allegations of consultant poaching and dominance were serious, the absence of concrete data weakened InstaAstro’s claims. The ruling affirms the competitive nature of the online astrology market and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes in emerging digital sectors.