The Competition Commission of India ruled that Big Tree Entertainment, operator of BookMyShow, holds a dominant position in online movie ticketing but did not abuse it under the Competition Act, 2002, dismissing rival Showtyme operator Vijay Gopal’s complaint.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) announced that Big Tree Entertainment, which runs the online movie ticketing service BookMyShow, is indeed a dominant player in the online movie booking sector. However, it ruled that the company has not misused its dominant position as per the Competition Act, 2002.
This ruling followed a complaint from Vijay Gopal, the proprietor of Vanila Entertainments, who operates a competing online ticketing service called Showtyme. Gopal accused BookMyShow of entering into exclusive contracts with cinemas and multiplex chains, thereby hindering rival ticketing platforms from gaining market access.
ALSO READ: Coldplay Concert: Lawyer Files Complaint Against BookMyShow & Live Nation
The CCI dismissed this allegation, stating,
“The Commission is of the view that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Commission is unable to come to a conclusion that the OP has abused its dominant position by imposing terms and conditions, which have the impact of foreclosing the market and denying market access to other players in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.”
Gopal further claimed that BookMyShow charged consumers a convenience fee for online bookings, part of which was allegedly shared with cinemas. This practice, he argued, dissuaded theaters from collaborating with competing platforms.
The CCI assessed whether these actions constituted abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act. It began by defining the relevant market, agreeing with the Director General (DG) that online ticket booking services operate distinctly from traditional box-office sales. The Commission observed that online platforms offer features such as seat comparison, digital payments, cancellation options, and promotional offers, which are unavailable at traditional ticket counters.
Thus, the relevant market was designated as the “market for online intermediation services for booking of movie tickets in India.”
Next, the Commission investigated whether BookMyShow was dominant in this defined market. It highlighted that the platform had entered the market early and established a vast network of cinema partners along with a substantial consumer base.
The CCI noted,
“The OP has maintained its leadership position in the relevant market over several years. The OP entered the market at an early stage and has, over time, built a wide network of cinema partners and a large consumer base,”
The Commission also pointed out the scale of the platform’s operations and the network effects it achieved due to its user base.
Consequently, it concluded that BookMyShow holds a dominant position in the market for online intermediation services for booking movie tickets in India. Nevertheless, the CCI acknowledged that the market remains dynamic, with other players such as Paytm and Justickets in the mix.
The Commission stated,
“The market cannot be considered effectively foreclosed for new competitors. Also, the existence of other players like Paytm, Justickets, and Amazon etc. in the said relevant market cannot be ignored,”
The CCI dismissed claims that reserving seats exclusively for BookMyShow was anti-competitive, accepting the platform’s explanation that such arrangements help prevent overlapping bookings. It mentioned that any unsold tickets reserved for the platform are subsequently released for sale at the box office.
Further, the Commission rejected claims concerning ownership of customer data, disagreeing with the DG’s argument that varying data-sharing practices between multiplexes and single-screen cinemas were discriminatory.
The order stated,
“Single-screen cinemas and multiplexes differ materially in terms of infrastructure, ability to handle customer data securely, amenities, operational costs, and the overall quality of services offered,”
Additionally, the CCI dismissed accusations that BookMyShow implemented discriminatory revenue-sharing agreements concerning convenience fees, noting these arrangements depend on various commercial factors such as business scale and negotiated contractual terms. It underscored that the competition authority is not a price regulator in these matters.
In examining the claim that exclusive agreements with cinemas effectively barred competing platforms from the market, the CCI found insufficient evidence to support substantial foreclosure. It noted that the number of exclusive agreements was limited compared to the total number of cinema screens in India.
In light of these findings, the CCI concluded that BookMyShow did not violate the abuse of dominance provisions in Section 4 of the Competition Act and ultimately closed the proceedings.
Case Title: In Re: Showtyme (through Vijay Gopal, Prop. of Vanila Entertainments) Prop. of Vanila Entertainments And Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (BookMyShow)
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE