(b) "Both horizontal and vertical agreements are included in Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 even when horizontal agreements are considered more harmful in comparison to vertical agreements.” Discuss.

The Competition Act, 2002, is India's primary legislation to prevent practices having an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) and to promote and sustain competition in markets. At its heart, Section 3 of the Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, which are arrangements between enterprises or persons that restrict, prevent, or distort competition. These agreements are broadly classified into two categories: horizontal agreements and vertical agreements. While both types fall under the purview of Section 3, the Act employs distinct approaches to assess their legality, reflecting the understanding that horizontal agreements, by their very nature, pose a more severe threat to market competition and consumer welfare. Understanding Anti-Competitive Agreements under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, generally prohibits any agreement that causes or is likely to cause an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) within India. This broad prohibition is then elaborated upon by categorizing agreements based on the relationship between the parties involved: horizontal and vertical agreements. Horizontal Agreements (Section 3(3)) Horizontal agreements are arrangements between enterprises or persons operating at the same level of the production or distribution chain, i.e., between competitors. These agreements often involve collusion among direct competitors to manipulate market dynamics in their favor. Section 3(3) of the Act specifically deals with such agreements and presumes that certain types of horizontal agreements inherently cause an AAEC. This is known as the 'per se' rule. Types of Horizontal Agreements under Section 3(3): Price Fixing: Agreements between competitors to fix, maintain, or increase the prices of goods or services. This eliminates competitive pricing and leads to artificially inflated prices, harming consumers. Limiting Production/Supply: Agreements to limit or control production, supply, markets, technical development, investment, or the provision of services. By restricting output, competitors can control supply and demand, leading to higher prices. Market Allocation: Agreements to divide markets among themselves, either geographically, by type of goods or services, or by customer segments. This restricts consumer choice and hinders fair competition. Bid Rigging: Conspiracies among competitors to manipulate the bidding process in tenders or auctions. This distorts procurement, leading to unfair advantages and higher costs. The 2023 amendment to the Competition Act further widened the scope of horizontal agreements to include "hub and spoke" arrangements, where a non-competing entity (the "hub") facilitates a cartel among competitors (the "spokes"), if it participates or intends to participate in the furtherance of such an agreement. Vertical Agreements (Section 3(4)) Vertical agreements are arrangements between enterprises or persons at different stages or levels of the production or distribution chain in different markets. These agreements typically involve a supplier and a buyer, such as a manufacturer and a distributor, or a wholesaler and a retailer. Unlike horizontal agreements, vertical agreements are not considered 'per se' anti-competitive. Their impact on competition is assessed under the 'rule of reason' approach, meaning an AAEC must be proven for them to be prohibited. Types of Vertical Agreements under Section 3(4): Tie-in Arrangement: An agreement conditioning the sale of one product on the buyer also purchasing another product. Exclusive Supply Agreement: An agreement requiring the purchaser of goods to purchase all or substantially all of its requirements of a particular good or service from a particular seller. Exclusive Distribution Agreement: An agreement to limit, restrict, or withhold the supply of any goods or allocate any area or market for their sale or distribution. Refusal to Deal: An agreement that restricts, or is likely to restrict, by any method the persons or classes of persons to whom goods are sold or from whom goods are bought. Resale Price Maintenance (RPM): Any agreement directly or indirectly establishing minimum or maximum resale prices for goods or services. Why Horizontal Agreements are Considered More Harmful The primary reason horizontal agreements are viewed as more harmful lies in their direct and immediate impact on competition. They involve direct competitors colluding to eliminate rivalry, which directly distorts market mechanisms and consumer welfare. The key differences in their treatment under the Competition Act highlight this distinction: Feature Horizontal Agreements (Section 3(3)) Vertical Agreements (Section 3(4)) Parties Involved Competitors at the same level of the production/distribution chain. Entities at different levels of the production/distribution chain (e.g., manufacturer-distributor). Nature of Harm Direct elimination of competition among rivals, leading to higher prices, reduced output, and less innovation. Potential to restrict competition, but may also offer efficiency gains (e.g., better distribution, reduced transaction costs). Legal Presumption Per Se Illegal: Presumed to have an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). The onus is on the party to prove no AAEC. Rule of Reason: AAEC must be proven by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Effects-based approach. Likelihood of Efficiencies Generally very low, primarily aimed at anti-competitive outcomes. Exceptions for genuine joint ventures that enhance efficiencies (proviso to Section 3(3)). Can often lead to efficiencies such as improved distribution, promotional efforts, and reduction in free-riding. The 'per se' illegality of hardcore horizontal restraints (like cartels) reflects a strong presumption that their anti-competitive effects almost always outweigh any potential pro-competitive benefits. Such agreements directly undermine the very essence of a competitive market by substituting competition with cooperation among rivals. For instance, price-fixing directly forces consumers to pay non-competitive prices, and market allocation restricts their choices. In contrast, vertical agreements, while having the potential for anti-competitive effects (e.g., by creating barriers to new entrants or foreclosing competition), can also generate significant economic efficiencies. For example, exclusive distribution agreements might incentivize distributors to invest more in promoting a particular brand. Therefore, a nuanced 'rule of reason' approach is adopted for vertical agreements, requiring the CCI to conduct a thorough analysis of the actual or likely AAEC, considering factors laid down in Section 19(3) of the Act, which include the creation of barriers to new entrants, driving existing competitors out of the market, and accrual of benefits to consumers. The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, has further strengthened the regulatory framework for both types of agreements, especially regarding penalties for cartelization and widening the scope of anti-competitive practices, underscoring India's commitment to robust competition enforcement. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, comprehensively addresses both horizontal and vertical agreements, reflecting India's commitment to fostering a competitive market environment. The distinction in their legal treatment – 'per se' illegality for hard-core horizontal agreements and the 'rule of reason' for vertical agreements – is a testament to the recognition that agreements among competitors (horizontal) are inherently more detrimental to market competition and consumer welfare. While vertical agreements may offer pro-competitive efficiencies, strict scrutiny is maintained to prevent their potential misuse. This balanced approach aims to deter egregious anti-competitive practices while allowing for legitimate business collaborations that benefit the economy and consumers.

What is the 'rule of reason' approach in competition law?

The 'rule of reason' approach requires a thorough analysis of an agreement's actual or likely effects on competition, weighing its potential anti-competitive harms against any pro-competitive benefits. Unlike the 'per se' rule, it does not presume illegality. This approach is typically applied to vertical agreements and horizontal agreements that are not considered hard-core cartels.

Competition Act 2002: Horizontal vs. Vertical Agreements

Understanding Anti-Competitive Agreements under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002

Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, generally prohibits any agreement that causes or is likely to cause an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) within India. This broad prohibition is then elaborated upon by categorizing agreements based on the relationship between the parties involved: horizontal and vertical agreements.

Horizontal Agreements (Section 3(3))

Horizontal agreements are arrangements between enterprises or persons operating at the same level of the production or distribution chain, i.e., between competitors. These agreements often involve collusion among direct competitors to manipulate market dynamics in their favor. Section 3(3) of the Act specifically deals with such agreements and presumes that certain types of horizontal agreements inherently cause an AAEC. This is known as the 'per se' rule.

Types of Horizontal Agreements under Section 3(3):

Price Fixing: Agreements between competitors to fix, maintain, or increase the prices of goods or services. This eliminates competitive pricing and leads to artificially inflated prices, harming consumers.
Limiting Production/Supply: Agreements to limit or control production, supply, markets, technical development, investment, or the provision of services. By restricting output, competitors can control supply and demand, leading to higher prices.
Market Allocation: Agreements to divide markets among themselves, either geographically, by type of goods or services, or by customer segments. This restricts consumer choice and hinders fair competition.
Bid Rigging: Conspiracies among competitors to manipulate the bidding process in tenders or auctions. This distorts procurement, leading to unfair advantages and higher costs.

The 2023 amendment to the Competition Act further widened the scope of horizontal agreements to include "hub and spoke" arrangements, where a non-competing entity (the "hub") facilitates a cartel among competitors (the "spokes"), if it participates or intends to participate in the furtherance of such an agreement.

Vertical Agreements (Section 3(4))

Vertical agreements are arrangements between enterprises or persons at different stages or levels of the production or distribution chain in different markets. These agreements typically involve a supplier and a buyer, such as a manufacturer and a distributor, or a wholesaler and a retailer. Unlike horizontal agreements, vertical agreements are not considered 'per se' anti-competitive. Their impact on competition is assessed under the 'rule of reason' approach, meaning an AAEC must be proven for them to be prohibited.

Types of Vertical Agreements under Section 3(4):

Tie-in Arrangement: An agreement conditioning the sale of one product on the buyer also purchasing another product.
Exclusive Supply Agreement: An agreement requiring the purchaser of goods to purchase all or substantially all of its requirements of a particular good or service from a particular seller.
Exclusive Distribution Agreement: An agreement to limit, restrict, or withhold the supply of any goods or allocate any area or market for their sale or distribution.
Refusal to Deal: An agreement that restricts, or is likely to restrict, by any method the persons or classes of persons to whom goods are sold or from whom goods are bought.
Resale Price Maintenance (RPM): Any agreement directly or indirectly establishing minimum or maximum resale prices for goods or services.

Why Horizontal Agreements are Considered More Harmful

The primary reason horizontal agreements are viewed as more harmful lies in their direct and immediate impact on competition. They involve direct competitors colluding to eliminate rivalry, which directly distorts market mechanisms and consumer welfare. The key differences in their treatment under the Competition Act highlight this distinction:

Feature	Horizontal Agreements (Section 3(3))	Vertical Agreements (Section 3(4))
Parties Involved	Competitors at the same level of the production/distribution chain.	Entities at different levels of the production/distribution chain (e.g., manufacturer-distributor).
Nature of Harm	Direct elimination of competition among rivals, leading to higher prices, reduced output, and less innovation.	Potential to restrict competition, but may also offer efficiency gains (e.g., better distribution, reduced transaction costs).
Legal Presumption	Per Se Illegal: Presumed to have an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). The onus is on the party to prove no AAEC.	Rule of Reason: AAEC must be proven by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Effects-based approach.
Likelihood of Efficiencies	Generally very low, primarily aimed at anti-competitive outcomes. Exceptions for genuine joint ventures that enhance efficiencies (proviso to Section 3(3)).	Can often lead to efficiencies such as improved distribution, promotional efforts, and reduction in free-riding.

The 'per se' illegality of hardcore horizontal restraints (like cartels) reflects a strong presumption that their anti-competitive effects almost always outweigh any potential pro-competitive benefits. Such agreements directly undermine the very essence of a competitive market by substituting competition with cooperation among rivals. For instance, price-fixing directly forces consumers to pay non-competitive prices, and market allocation restricts their choices.

In contrast, vertical agreements, while having the potential for anti-competitive effects (e.g., by creating barriers to new entrants or foreclosing competition), can also generate significant economic efficiencies. For example, exclusive distribution agreements might incentivize distributors to invest more in promoting a particular brand. Therefore, a nuanced 'rule of reason' approach is adopted for vertical agreements, requiring the CCI to conduct a thorough analysis of the actual or likely AAEC, considering factors laid down in Section 19(3) of the Act, which include the creation of barriers to new entrants, driving existing competitors out of the market, and accrual of benefits to consumers.

The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, has further strengthened the regulatory framework for both types of agreements, especially regarding penalties for cartelization and widening the scope of anti-competitive practices, underscoring India's commitment to robust competition enforcement.

Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, comprehensively addresses both horizontal and vertical agreements, reflecting India's commitment to fostering a competitive market environment. The distinction in their legal treatment – 'per se' illegality for hard-core horizontal agreements and the 'rule of reason' for vertical agreements – is a testament to the recognition that agreements among competitors (horizontal) are inherently more detrimental to market competition and consumer welfare. While vertical agreements may offer pro-competitive efficiencies, strict scrutiny is maintained to prevent their potential misuse. This balanced approach aims to deter egregious anti-competitive practices while allowing for legitimate business collaborations that benefit the economy and consumers.

(b) "Both horizontal and vertical agreements are included in Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 even when horizontal agreements are considered more harmful in comparison to vertical agreements.” Discuss.

Model Answer

Introduction

Understanding Anti-Competitive Agreements under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002

Horizontal Agreements (Section 3(3))

Types of Horizontal Agreements under Section 3(3):

Vertical Agreements (Section 3(4))

Types of Vertical Agreements under Section 3(4):

Why Horizontal Agreements are Considered More Harmful

Conclusion

Evaluate your handwritten answer in under a minute

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Key Statistics

Examples

Cement Cartel Case

Hyundai Motor India Case (Resale Price Maintenance)

Frequently Asked Questions

Topics Covered