2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a)---Day-Old broiler Chicks---Price-fixing for next day---Functioning of WhatsApp Group formed by eight major poultry hatcheries (Group Members) to engage in / discuss coordinated price-fixing---Exchange of pricing information---Price-parallelism---Scope---Cartelization---Scope---Between March 2020 and April 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346%( from Rs. 17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a WhatsApp Group (Group Members) while Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA) being present in the said WhatsApp Group (Group)---Group members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group members / hatcheries (Respondent Undertakings ) and Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA)---Whether the communication of pricing information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010?---Argument of the Respondent Undertakings (hatcheries) was that in order to establish collusion, price-parallelism and plus-factors be considered and their communications did not violate the provisions of Competition law---Validity---Price parallelism is a recognized characteristic of oligopolistic markets, where competitors may independently set similar prices in response to market conditions---In such cases, firms may adjust their pricing strategies based on external economic factors rather than engaging in explicit coordination---Although, generally, the price coordination alone does not constitute a violation unless additional plus factors, such as evidence of intentional alignment beyond natural market responses, are present, however, when competitors actively exchange sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding future pricing intentions, the legal and economic analysis shifts---In the present case, the evidence in the Enquiry Report confirms that the Respondents were actively changing pricing information with the intent of coordinating their commercial strategies---The manner in which information is exchanged is the key factor in competition assessments---Though the companies may share information directly or through third parties or via public information-sharing schemes, however, information exchange through a third party, such as a trade association, does not diminish its potential to facilitate anti-competitive coordination---The exchange of future pricing information constitutes an anti-competitive agreement---In the present case, the evidence shows a clear pattern of reciprocal pricing discussions among competitors, reinforcing the presence of a collusive arrangement, which is a violation by object---Argument of the Respondents (regarding price -parallelism or plus-factors) was irrelevant, as the mere exchange of commercially sensitive information was sufficient to establish liability---Thus, it was evident that the Respondents Undertakings' communication of pricing information amounted to collusive practices which had the object of preventing, restricting, and distorting competition in the DOC market and their conduct accordingly constituted a clear contravention of S. 4 of the Act 2010---Commission, on the basis of the analysis of the issue and the presented evidence, found that the communication of price information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a breach of provisions of Competition Act, 2010, holding that the sharing of commercially sensitive information by PPA and the Respondents was anti-competitive and in contravention of Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a) of the Act 2010---Commission directed the Respondents /Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) to cease and desist from engaging in any activity that violated the provisions of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010 and directed the PPA to issue comprehensive guidance to its officials and members periodically regarding compliance with the competition regime in Pakistan---Commission, considering the seriousness of the infringement, particularly effect of price-fixing, which was a very serious offence, and the absence of any mitigating conduct indicative of a compliance-oriented approach, imposed penalty on every Respondent /Undertaking (poultry hatchery) in view of its respective/proportional conduct and level of engagement (receiving text message)---Proceedings initiated under Show-Cause Notices were decided against the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries). Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS S. 4---Day-Old broiler Chicks---Price-fixing---Perishability of a product---Effect---Anti-competitiveness---Scope---Between March 2020 and April 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346% (from Rs. 17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a WhatsApp Group (Group Members)---Group Members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group Members / hatcheries (Respondent Undertakings)---Argument of the Respondents / Undertakings (hatcheries) was that that DOCs, being perishable in nature, were not amenable to market manipulation through price fixing or supply control---Validity---As a majority of DOC producers were vertically integrated, extending up to broiler chicken production; in cases of surplus production, the said producers diverted the excess DOCs to their own controlled farms or sheds---Therefore, the argument of the Respondents was dismissed---Commission, on the basis of the analysis of the issue and the presented evidence, found that the communication of price information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a breach of provisions of Competition Act, 2010, holding that the sharing of commercially sensitive information by PPA and the Respondents was anti-competitive and in contravention of S. 4 of the Act 2010---Commission directed the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) to cease and desist from engaging in any activity that violated the provisions of S.4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Commission, considering the seriousness of the infringement, particularly effect of price-fixing, which was considered a very serious offence and absence of any mitigating conduct indicative of a compliance-oriented approach, imposed penalty on every Respondent /Undertaking (poultry hatchery) in view of its respective/proportional conduct and level of engagement (receiving text messages)---Proceedings initiated under Show-Cause Notices were decided against the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS Reglns. 2(1)(g) & 26a(2)(a)---Competition act (XIX of 2010), Ss. 4 & 34---Inspection of Undertaking(s) by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (Commission)---Hand-held devices (mobile phones etc.), impounding of---'Document' and 'computer'---Meaning and scope---argument of the Respondents/ Undertakings was that the Commission could impound accounts, documents and computer, however, it cannot impound mobile phones because computers are distinct from mobile phones and the two cannot be treated as the one or the same thing---Whether smart phones fall under the category of computers or not?---Held; Notably, the Competition act, 2010 ('the act, 2010'), does not define 'computer'---Regulation 26a(2)(a) of the Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007 ('the Regulations 2007'), inter alia, specifies "telephone records including authenticated mobile telephone records"---Moreover, definition of the term "document" as per Regulation 2(1)(g) of the Regulations 2007 is of wide import and refers to any material used to record any matter, hence, would also include digital forms of documentation such as e-mail, text messages, etc.---In the present case, pertinently, only the material and documents related to the instant matter were obtained from the mobile devices with no leakage of any potential information---Even no such allegation was on record despite the passage of significant time---Regulatory bodies while interpreting the relevant laws should not be strict and rigid in their approach but should be accessible, intelligible and must change with times responding to realities of modern life---The system should be alive and alert and responsive to technological advances and changes that can enhance transparency and openness of the proceedings---Technological developments should be monitored and appreciated to ensure that law is not stagnant or archaic---When certain expression is not defined in the statute, a Court has to look to the ordinary dictionary meaning of the words---Considering various definitions of a mobile phone mentioned in multiple dictionaries, the tablets, smart phones, and other personal digital assistants (PDas) can be regarded as personal computers as they are powered by microprocessors, they are programmable, they are electronic devices, they process information, they can store and transmit information and have a central processing unit (CPU)---However, the standard applied to mobile devices during inspections should be equivalent to that applied to traditional computers, recognizing the relevance and significance of the information stored in them---Mobile phones and similar devices, used by officials for business communications, are justifiably subjected to inspection and data extraction---Thus, the impounding of mobile phones and other similar devices was in accordance with the provisions of the act, 2020---all documents, record and material obtained and attached with the Enquiry Report were admissible in evidence---Objections raised by the Respondents in that regard were dismissed, as the inspection and impounding of mobile devices was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the act 2010 and in alignment with the evolving technological landscape. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS Ss.3, 4, 10, 11, 30, 33, 34 & 37---Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 16 & 22(2)---Enquiry proceedings i.e. steps preceding the issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN)---Each and every Respondent/ Undertaking not involved---Scope and effect---Principles of natural justice---Adverse action, non-passing of---Effect---Whether it is mandatory for the enquiry to involve all the respondents during the enquiry stage?---Held: pertinently, an enquiry under S. 37 of the Act, 2010 is a fact-finding exercise that enables the Commission to gather evidence to either rule out a contravention, or if a contravention is found to proceed to the Show-Cause Notice (SCN) stage and provide an opportunity of hearing to the alleged violators---Mere non-engagement of one or more Respondents at the enquiry stage does not constitute a violation of natural justice since neither an adverse order has been passed nor any penalty has been imposed on the Respondents---The principle comes into play once the Commission has considered the Enquiry Report and issued SCN alleging the contravention of one or more provisions of the Act 2010---Notably, the scope of proceedings before the Commission under the Act 2010 are inquisitorial in nature---Legislature, in all its wisdom, has provided for various powers to the Commission, which may be used during the proceedings under S. 30 of the Act 2010---Moreover, even during adjudication, the Commission can exercise the powers under section 33 as well as S. 34 of the Act, 2010 if the situation so requires as there is the difference between an inquisitorial and adversarial system---Rules of natural justice are not cast in a rigid mold and depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, there is no mandatory requirement of natural justice that in every case the other side must be given a notice before preliminary steps are taken---Reasonable opportunity of hearing is granted to a person before an adverse action or decision is taken against him, however, where the only enquiry is as to whether there is prima facie evidence, natural justice does not require that the party should be given notice of it---Under the provisions of Ss. 30, 33, 34 & 37 of the Act 2010 and Regln. 22(2) of the Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007 ('the Regulations 2007'), there is no mandatory requirement on the Commission to issue a notice/hold a hearing at the enquiry stage---Regulation 16 of the Regulations 2007 allows the Commission to commence an enquiry, inter alia, suo moto or in the case of a complaint; the standard to be satisfied in the latter case is if facts before it appear to constitute a contravention of Ss. 3, 4, 10, 11 and/or provisions of Chapter II of the Act 2010---Thus, there is no requirement of notice [calling for information] or hearing at the stage of enquiry, therefore, the requirement of natural justice [opportunity of a hearing] does not apply at the initiation of and during an enquiry by the Commission---Proceedings initiated under Show Cause Notices was conducted and decided against the Respondents accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS S. 4---Competitive laws, observance of---Conduct of the employees of the Undertakings---Effect---Undertakings, responsibilities of---Scope---Between March 2020 and April 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346% (from Rs. 17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a WhatsApp Group (Group Members) while Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA) being present in the said WhatsApp Group (Group)---Group members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group Members / hatcheries (Respondent Undertakings) and Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA)---Argument of the Respondents/Undertakings (Hatcheries) was that there was no authorization or instructions to its employees to act (send, receive, share, accept, acknowledge, communicate) implementing collusive prices for DOC and that their respective employee acted in their personal capacity outside the sphere of their professional duties, therefore they could not be held accountable for the actions of employee carried out without authorization---Whether an Undertaking can be held liable for the acts of its employee?---Held: Every employee working in an undertaking is a part of that undertaking---An undertaking is an economic unit based on different separate entities, legally and naturally combined---In accordance with the competition law, if an employee's acts violate any of the law's provisions, the undertaking will be held accountable---An employee performs his duties for and under the direction of the undertaking for which he works and, thus, is considered to be incorporated into the economic unit comprised by that undertaking and any anti-competitive conduct on the part of an employee is attributable to the undertaking to which he belongs and that undertaking is, as a matter of principle, held liable for that conduct---Moreover, the alleged anti-competitive activity of the employees may benefit the undertakings business only rather than any personal gain to the employee---Thus, the Respondents (Undertakings / Hatcheries) were accountable for the conduct of their employees and their argument lacked merit and was, therefore, dismissed---Commission, on the basis of the analysis of the issue and the presented evidence, found that the communication of price information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a breach of provisions of Competition Act, 2010, holding that the sharing of commercially sensitive information by PPA and the Respondents was anti-competitive and in contravention of Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a) of the Act, 2010---Commission directed the Respondents /Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) to cease and desist from engaging in any activity that violated the provisions of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Commission, considering the seriousness of the infringement, particularly effect of price-fixing, which was considered a very serious offence, imposed penalty on every Respondent /Undertaking (poultry hatchery) in view of its respective/proportional conduct and level of engagement (receiving text messages)---Proceedings initiated under Show-Cause Notices were decided against the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) and Pakistan Poultry Association. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS Ss. 4, 34 & 53---Inspection of Undertaking(s) by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (Commission)---Hand-held devices (mobile phones etc.), impounding of---Commission's authorized officers, powers of---Whether the inspection team could have impounded mobile phones from the officials of the respondents?---Held: S. 34 of the Competition Act, 2010 ('Act, 2010') provides the Commission with the power to authorize its officers to enter and search premises, inspect documents and collect information, which provisions make it clear that the authorized officer may search the premises and inspect books, papers, accounts, receipts, vouchers, documentation, files, computer-stored information, computerized accounting data and recordings or any other data which may be found in the premises, make copies of, or take extracts from, any book, paper, accounts, documentation and files or other material which may be found in the premises and make a note or record of such inspection---In the present case, the Commission sought assistance from the Federal Investigating Agency (FIA), under the provisions of S. 53 of the Act 2010, for digital forensic analysis to retrieve the digital evidence and to authenticate its veracity---The scope of the digital forensic analysis was to analyze evidentiary items relating to phone calls made and received, SMS messages, messages / conversations including media on app based communication and email accounts---Moreover, the Commission also sought assistance from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), under S. 53 of the Act, 2010, for verification of the ownership details of mobile numbers of various participants involved in the exchange of information related to the poultry products---Commission found that the impounding of mobile phones and other devices was in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2010. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a)----Day-Old broiler Chicks---Price-fixing for next day---Functioning of WhatsApp Group formed by major poultry hatcheries (Group Members) to engage in / discuss coordinated price-fixing---Exchange of pricing---Effect---Cartelization---Scope---Prohibited agreements---Scope---Between March 2020 and April 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346% (from Rs.17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a WhatsApp Group (Group Members) while Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA) were present in the said WhatsApp Group (Group)---Group Members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group Members / hatcheries (Respondent Undertakings) and Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA)---Whether the communication of pricing information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constitutes a contravention of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010?---Held: Argument of the Respondents (poultry hatcheries / Group Members) was that the exchange of pricing information for DOC through SMS and WhatsApp groups did not violate S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010 ('the Act 2010')---Validity---Section 4(1) of the Act, 2010 expressly prohibits undertakings from engaging in agreements, decisions, or concerted practices that have the object or effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition, under S. 4(2)(a) of the Act, 2010---"Prohibited agreements" include, directly or indirectly , fixing the purchase or selling price or any other trading conditions---Thus, the exchange of pricing information among competitors, whether through direct meetings, digital communications, or other means, constitutes an anti-competitive agreement if it facilitates price-fixing or other forms of collusion as by sharing commercially sensitive information such as "price" the undertakings tacitly agree to distort the market mechanism and the context of such communications play a critical role in determining whether they fall within the scope of S. 4 of the Act 2010---Co-ordinated discussions among competitors regarding pricing, whether in person or through digital means, constitute a restriction of competition---In the present case, the Enquiry Report provided extensive evidence of pricing information exchanges among PPA members via SMS and WhatsApp, demonstrating a consistent pattern of communication aimed at coordinating prices rather than merely sharing independent market observations---The frequency and specificity of these communications confirmed that they were not incidental exchanges but deliberate actions intended to align pricing strategies across the DOC market---The impact of such practices was significant, as the exchange of commercially sensitive pricing information eliminates competitive uncertainty and enables coordinated decision making among competitors; which does, none the less, strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such operators by which an undertaking may influence the conduct on the market of its actual or potential competitors or disclose to them its decisions or intentions concerning its own conduct on the market where the object or effect of such contact is to create conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market-in-question, even though there is no direct connection between the practice and consumer prices---The exchange of pricing information among competitors is a violation by object under competition law---Once such an agreement is established, proving price parallelism or plus factors becomes unnecessary---The exchange of the information itself is deemed anti-competitive, without requiring further analysis of its actual effects on pricing---Commission, on the basis of the analysis of the issue and the presented evidence, found that the communication of price information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a breach of provisions of Competition Act, 2010, holding that the sharing of commercially sensitive information by PPA and the Respondents was anti-competitive in contravention of Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a) of the Act, 2010---Commission directed the Respondents /Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) to cease and desist from engaging in any activity that violates the provisions of S. 4 of the Competition Act 2010 and directed the PPA to issue comprehensive guidance to its officials and members periodically regarding compliance with the competition regime in Pakistan---Commission, considering the seriousness of the infringement, particularly effect of price-fixing, which was considered a very serious offence, and the absence of any mitigating conduct indicative of a compliance-oriented approach, imposed penalty on every Respondent / Undertaking (poultry hatchery) in view of its respective/proportional conduct and level of engagement (receiving text messages)---Proceedings initiated under Show-Cause Notices were decided against the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) and Pakistan Poultry Association accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS art. 164---Competition act (XIX of 2010), S. 4---Search and inspection by the Competition Commission of Pakistan(Commission)---Evidence obtained in form of SMS and Whatsapp communication---Legality and admissibility---Scope---Between March 2020 and april 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346%( from Rs. 17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a Whatsapp Group (Group Members) while Pakistan Poultry association (PPa) were present in the said Whatsapp Group (Group)---Group members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group Members / hatcheries ( Respondent Undertakings ) and Pakistan Poultry association (PPa)---Whether the Enquiry Committee's reliance on the evidence extracted in the form of SMS and Whatsapp communication was tenable under the law?---argument of the Respondents / Undertakings was that the reliance on evidence extracted from their(Respondents') devices, not being direct evidence, was not legally tenable---Validity---The standard for admissibility of evidence in regulatory and quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those conducted by the Commission, often differs from that in criminal or civil court proceedings---The focus in such regulatory contexts is generally on whether the evidence is relevant, sufficient and probative, rather than strictly adhering to formal rules of evidence---Commission while hearing cases must follow due process, which is not bound by the formal laws of evidence and procedure---Digital evidence, including SMS and Whatsapp messages, is increasingly recognized as admissible in legal proceedings, provided that it is relevant, authentic, and has been obtained lawfully---In competition law enforcement, the emphasis is on obtaining evidence to uncover anticompetitive practices and there is no bar on the Commission to take into account the SMS messages if they include agreements, decisions, or discussions related to the facts in question---SMS is covered by art. 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and is admissible to prove a fact subject to the conditions that fact sought to be proved is relevant (meaning that it must be of consequence to determination of a case); that text is not a hearsay, and that its authenticity is duly established at trial---E-mail correspondences and digital messages have been pivotal in proving the existence of illegal agreements, admissibility of which (digital evidence) emphases its growing importance in legal proceedings---In the present case, the evidence extracted from the mobile phones and other devices of the Respondents /Undertakings was obtained following the prescribed procedures and standards outlined in the Competition act, 2010 and the Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007 ('the Regulations, 2007')---The inspection team ensured that the information was accurately and completely recorded and measures were taken to maintain the confidentiality of the data---The Respondents were provided with opportunities to review and challenge the evidence presented against them during the proceedings---Said adherence to due process and procedural safeguards further supports the tenability of the evidence obtained---Commission, on the basis of the analysis of the issue and the presented evidence, found that the reliance on the evidence extracted from the Respondents' devices was legally tenable and in accordance with the provisions of the Competition act, 2010 and the Regulations 2007. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS Ss. 14(1) proviso to, 14(7), 24(3) & 28(2)---Composition of Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission')---Absence / vacancy of member(s) of the Commission---Effect---Conducting of proceedings by the Commission while not being in quorum---Authenticity---Scope---Whether the Commission is authorized to conduct the proceedings as per S. 14 of the Competition Act , 2010 ('the Act 2010'), which requires a minimum of five members to constitute Commission?---Held: According to proviso to S. 14(1) of the Act 2010, the Federal Government may increase or decrease the number of members from time to time as it may consider appropriate; additionally, it has been specifically provided in S. 14(7) of the Act 2010 that no proceedings shall be invalid because of a vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Commission; furthermore, under the provisions of S. 24(3) of the Act, 2010, the statutory quorum for meetings of the Commission is of three members---Pertinently, the Parliament, in its wisdom, has authorized the Commission, under subsection (2) of S. 28 of the Act, 2010, to delegate any or all of its powers and functions to its members and officers---The provisions under Ss. 14(1), 14(7) ,24(3) and 28(2) of the Act, 2010 ensure the Commission's effective and continuous functioning by providing flexibility in its composition and safeguarding its decisions from invalidation due to technical or procedural issues---Procedural defects do not invalidate acts unless explicitly stated by the statute---Thus, by virtue of S. 14(7) of the Act 2010, the Parliament has intended to maintain the Commission's functional continuity and stability, preventing challenges based on procedural technicalities which could otherwise be used to obstruct its functioning, which (legislative scheme) clearly allows the Commission's decisions to remain valid during periods of a member's absence or vacancy ensuring uninterrupted regulatory or oversight activities---Argument of the Respondents/Undertakings regarding the quorum and legality of the instant proceedings could not be accepted and the instant proceedings were, in pith and substance, in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2010. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1732 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS S. 4 & Preamble---Competition laws, observance of---Trade associations and their members, role of---Permissible activities---Between March 2020 and April 2021, the price of Day-Old broiler Chicks (DOCs) rose by 346%(from Rs. 17.92 to Rs. 79.92 per chick) contributing heavily to broiler meat price inflation---Pertaining to alleged collusion in prices of DOCs, multiple complaints received by Competition Commission of Pakistan ('Commission') revealed that eight major poultry hatcheries had formed a WhatsApp Group (Group Members) while Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA) being present in the said WhatsApp Group (Group)---Group members actively discussed and shared next-day prices and same / uniform high price was maintained by all the major hatcheries in DOC market---Commission proceeded against Group members / hatcheries (Respondent Undertakings) and Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA)---Whether the role of PPA and the Respondent Undertakings was in compliance with the provisions of the Competition Act, 2010 ('the Act 2010')?---Held: Discussions-in-question revealed that the PPA played a central role in facilitating the same by ensuring that its members remained aligned on pricing---Though the trade associations play an important role in representing the interests of their members, providing a platform for information exchange and promoting industry standards and best practices, however, their activities must comply with competition law and should not facilitate anticompetitive behavior---Section 4 of the Act 2010 explicitly prohibits trade associations from engaging in activities that have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition---Trade associations and their members must ensure that their activities are in compliance with the provisions of the Act 2010, which includes avoiding any form of coordination or agreement that may result in anti-competitive practices---Discussion, deliberation and decisions regarding purely business concerns like current and future pricing, production and marketing are anti-competitive and should be avoided at all costs by the Associations---PPA could not be relieved of liability---Even, due to previous penalties imposed by the Commission against PPA, the association was well versed with the nuances of the competition law being fully aware of the repercussions of discussing current and future prices---Assuming, arguendo, that the planning and collusion took place prior to PPA joining the communication groups, PPA should have avoided such discussions after learning of them---PPA should be held to a higher standard since, as an association, it is in charge of raising awareness of policies---The person in-charge of raising awareness cannot claim ignorance---PPA was unable to demonstrate that it took any action to halt the conversations beyond 2020---Commission expected that PPA, learning from that experience, would abstain from anti-competitive behavior and would regularly counsel its officials and members regarding competition law compliance---Commission found that the communication of price information for DOC via SMS and WhatsApp groups constituted a breach of provisions of Competition Act, 2010, holding that the sharing of commercially sensitive information by PPA and the Respondents was anti-competitive and in contravention of Ss. 4(1) & 4(2)(a) of the Act, 2010---Commission directed the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) to cease and desist from engaging in any activity that violated the provisions of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2010, and directed the PPA to issue comprehensive guidance to its officials and members periodically regarding compliance with the competition regime in Pakistan---Commission, considering the seriousness of the infringement, particularly effect of price-fixing, which was a very serious offence, and the absence of any mitigating conduct indicative of a compliance-oriented approach, imposed penalty on every Respondent / Undertaking (poultry hatchery) in view of its respective/proportional conduct and level of engagement (receiving text messages)---Commission imposed a penalty of PKR 25 million (Pak Rupees Twenty Five Million Only) on Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA)---Proceedings initiated under Show-Cause Notices were decided against the Respondents / Undertakings (poultry hatcheries) and Pakistan Poultry Association accordingly.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD