CCI dismisses complaint against Astrotalk

The Competition Commission of India chaired by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag dismissed a complaint against Astotalk and argued that allegations of market dominance cannot be established by media statements alone. It also argued that poaching falls under contract law and not competition law.

Brief facts of the case

InstaAstro Technology Private Limited (Whistleblower) has filed a complaint against Astrotalk Services Private Limited (opposite party) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Whistleblower is running an online astrology portal offering services in the form of tarot reading, vastu , Vedic astrology etc. It was alleged that Astrotalk poached trained consultants and employees from the whistleblower by offering them multiple remunerations, sometimes up to Rs. 5,00,000 per month. The whistleblower also alleged that Astrotalk also induced consultants to cancel their agreements with it and its competitors. This caused disruptions in the markets. The whistleblower pleaded for injunctive relief, sanctions and injunctive relief to prevent Astrotalk from poaching its consultants and entering into restrictive agreements with them.

Astrotalk appeals

Astrotalk argued that the displacement of consultants was a matter of individual choice and contractual freedom, which fell outside the scope of competition law. It argued that consultants had the right to provide their services on any platform that offered better opportunities. With regard to dominance, Astrotalk denied the whistleblower’s claims, pointing out that the allegations were based solely on its CEO’s press statements, which were insufficient to establish market dominance.

Observation from the Commission

The Commission examined the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. On the Section 3 claims, it noted that the alleged poaching and contractual issues fell primarily under contract law and not competition law. It stated that the consultants were free to choose their affiliation and their movement to other platforms did not constitute anti-competitive behaviour. For the charges under Section 4, the Commission delineated the relevant market as “supply of goods and services related to astrology through online applications in India”. It noted that the whistleblower did not provide any data or statistics to support Astrotalk’s dominance in this market. The Commission noted that there were other competing platforms, including Astrosage, Astroyogi, Guruji and Clickastro, operating in the market and thus imposing competitive constraints on Astrotalk. The Commission found that dominance cannot be established on the basis of press statements alone. It was argued that no case of abuse of dominant position under section 4 arose without concrete evidence of dominant position. The commission closed the case, pointing out that the claims involved contractual issues rather than anti-competitive practices.

Case name: InstaAstro Technology Private Limited vs. Astrotalk Services Private Limited

Case no: 22 of 2024

Click here to read/download the order