In the complex landscape of competitive markets, the concept of competitive exclusion serves as a pivotal element influencing the development of industries and businesses. Originating from ecological theory, competitive exclusion asserts that two entities vying for the same resources cannot persist together indefinitely; one will ultimately prevail over the other. When this principle is applied to business strategy, it offers significant insights into the intense and often unforgiving dynamics that determine market results.

What is Predatory Pricing?

Predatory pricing refers to the illegal strategy of pricing a product excessively low to eliminate competition. This practice is designed to create a monopoly and is prohibited by antitrust legislation. A dominant firm, referred to as the predator, maintains these low prices for an extended duration, causing competitors to exit the market and discouraging potential new entrants. The primary goal is to eradicate competition, prevent new market participants, and force current competitors to leave by luring away their customers.

Predatory pricing is specifically covered by Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 of India, which addresses the "Abuse of a Dominant Position." In Section 4, particular forms of abuse are listed, such as when prices are set "in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service" and are "unfair or discriminatory." A further "Explanation" defines predatory price as "Predatory Price" means the sale of goods or provision of services, at a price which is below the cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors.

Stages of Predatory Pricing

STAGE 1: Predation
Predatory pricing is a tactic that is typically employed by large organizations. This strategy involves a leading company setting its prices lower than those of its rivals. While this price reduction may lead to a decrease in immediate profits, it compels competitors to lower their

prices as well. At this juncture, smaller businesses or new market entrants may contemplate shutting down their operations. If competitors choose to lower their prices but continue to operate, the dominant firm will likely reduce its prices even further. Although selling at a loss may incur short-term financial setbacks, it exerts pressure on competitors to continue decreasing their prices. Ultimately, this may result in numerous competitors exiting the market, leaving only the larger firms with sufficient capital to endure the losses.

STAGE 2: Re-coupment
As competition diminishes and the company achieves its targeted outcomes, it modifies its pricing strategy in response to the remaining competitors in the marketplace. During the recoupment phase, consumers become highly vulnerable to exploitation. With limited competition, they are compelled to buy from the only supplier present. This process illustrates how large corporations can eradicate competition and create a monopolistic environment.

What does not constitute Predatory Pricing?

Predatory pricing must not be mistaken for typical competitive price wars. For example, a business that lowers its prices below those of its rivals may provide products at more affordable rates. Companies such as Walmart, Southwest Airlines, and D-Mart consistently maintain low pricing strategies. Although these low prices might lead to a reduction in market share for competitors, they do not qualify as predatory pricing.

Likewise, smaller or emerging businesses that implement temporary and significant discounts should not be categorized as engaging in predatory practices, as their actions are unlikely to eliminate larger firms from the market. The mere removal of a single competitor does not constitute predatory pricing. In summary, the topic of predatory pricing remains a subject of ongoing discussion, with prevailing views indicating that it can occur, but only under particular circumstances.

Why is Predatory Pricing illegal in nature?

Predatory pricing is considered illegal in nature due to its large effects on market competition. This practice hinders the ability of both existing companies and new players to compete and thrive in the market. Allowing predatory pricing would ultimately harm small businesses, start-

ups, as they would struggle to survive against dominant market players. Furthermore, consumers would face negative consequences in the long run if a monopoly were to form. The Competition Commission of India, under Section 18 of the Competition Act, is tasked with preventing such anti-competitive practices, safeguarding consumer interests, and maintaining a fair trading environment in the Indian markets. It is crucial for the commission to take action against predatory pricing, which is a misuse of dominant market position through pricing strategies

The Legal Framework for Predatory Pricing.

To fully grasp the legal framework related to predatory pricing cases, it is crucial to examine the various viewpoints associated with this matter. From an economic standpoint, predatory pricing is often viewed as a rational tactic that can ultimately benefit consumers by fostering competition and lowering prices. Conversely, from a legal perspective, predatory pricing raises concerns as it may harm consumers by stifling competition. As a result, courts have established a series of legal criteria to assess whether a pricing strategy qualifies as predatory pricing and if it infringes upon antitrust regulations.

To elucidate the legal framework pertaining to predatory pricing cases, the following points should be taken into account:

1. Predatory pricing is not illegal per se: Predatory pricing is not intrinsically deemed illegal, as pricing strategies are shaped by the competitive dynamics of the market. However, complications arise when predatory pricing is utilized to engage in anticompetitive behaviour aimed at eliminating or hindering competitors, which can adversely affect consumer welfare. The legality of predatory pricing is contingent upon several factors, including the intent behind the pricing strategy, the degree of market dominance, and the capacity to recoup losses through future price modifications. For predatory pricing to be classified as illegal, it must be demonstrated that a company intentionally adopted this strategy to eradicate competitors from the market and subsequently raise prices after achieving a monopolistic position.
    
2. Proof of intent is Difficult: Proving intent in cases of predatory pricing presents a significant challenge under the legal framework. Unlike concrete economic evidence, intent is often subjective and can be difficult to definitively establish. Companies practicing predatory pricing may offer reasonable explanations for their pricing tactics. Courts and regulatory bodies typically rely on indirect evidence, market behaviour, and internal records to infer intent, but these sources may not offer conclusive proof.
    
3. The Brooke Group test: The modern formulation of testing for the existence of predatory pricing came out of a claim by Brooke Group against Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993). In this matter, the United States Supreme Court required Brooke Group to prove two elements: (1) that Brown & Williamson had priced their generic cigarettes below an appropriate measure of cost and (2) that Brown & Williamson had a reasonable possibility of recouping losses incurred due to pricing below cost. This has come to be known as the "Brooke Group" test. The Court established that a plaintiff alleging predatory pricing must not only prove that the defendant's prices are below a suitable cost measure but must show that the competitor had a reasonable prospect or a "dangerous probability" that the predator can recover its losses in the future by increasing prices to monopoly levels.
    
4. Consumer impact is crucial: Safeguarding consumer welfare is a critical aspect of the legal framework addressing predatory pricing. When companies engage in predatory pricing by offering products or services at prices below cost to eliminate competition, consumers may benefit from lower prices in the short term. However, the long-term consequences can be detrimental. Once competitors are driven out or deterred from entering the market, the predatory firm may gain monopoly power, leading to reduced options, stifled innovation, and potential price hikes. Consequently, a robust legal framework must thoroughly assess the implications for consumers, ensuring that competition is preserved, choices remain abundant, and the overall welfare of consumers is prioritized in the marketplace.

Identifying Predatory Pricing Conduct

Here are several methods to identify predatory pricing:

1. Price below cost of production: Price below cost of production in predatory pricing includes selling goods or services at a rate that doesn't cover the expenses incurred in manufacturing or providing them. This means the selling price doesn't account for the cost of materials, labour, overhead, and other production-related expenses. When a company engages in predatory pricing, it deliberately sets prices below this threshold, often with the intention of driving competitors out of the market. This tactic aims to create barriers to entry for potential competitors and ultimately establish monopolistic control over the market. For instance, if a company sells a product for Rs.5 while its production cost is Rs.10, it is likely engaging in predatory pricing conduct.
    
2. Pricing below AVC: Pricing below the Average Variable Cost (AVC) is a strategy that can be seen as predatory pricing. This tactic involves intentionally setting prices lower than the variable costs to force competitors out of the market. The Average Variable Cost represents the variable expenses of producing a single unit of a product, excluding fixed costs. Although this may initially attract customers with appealing prices, it can eventually lead to negative consequences such as market distortions, reduced competition, and possible monopolistic behaviour. Regulators closely monitor such pricing strategies to ensure fair competition and to protect consumers from harm.
    
3. Aggressive pricing: Aggressive pricing is a pricing strategy where a company intentionally sets prices significantly lower than its competitors to eliminate or weaken competition. This tactic is aimed at creating obstacles for new entrants or pushing existing competitors out of the market, ultimately allowing the aggressor to establish or reinforce its market dominance. Regulators closely monitor such aggressive pricing behaviours to ensure fair competition and safeguard consumers from potential negative consequences, such as limited choices and higher prices in the future.
    
4. Long term sustained pricing: Predatory pricing is not a short-term tactic but requires a sustained period of pricing below cost or below AVC to drive competitors out of business. Long-term sustained pricing in predatory pricing conduct involves setting prices below cost for an extended period to eliminate competition and establish market dominance. This strategy aims to drive competitors out of the market by creating an environment where they cannot sustain profitable operations. Companies using this approach often have significant financial resources to absorb losses over time, while smaller competitors struggle to survive. The ultimate goal is to achieve a monopolistic or dominant position in the market.

Situations which facilitate Predatory Pricing by Dominant Firms

Here are some situations or conditions that may facilitate predatory pricing by dominant firms:

1. Dominance in Relevant Market: Predatory pricing is a tactic primarily employed by large corporations that maintain a significant foothold in specific markets. These dominant entities wield substantial influence, enabling them to affect pricing structures and manipulate competitive dynamics. When assessing market dominance, it is essential to consider factors such as market share and resource availability.
    
2. Cost Advantage: Firms in a dominant position often enjoy cost advantages due to their large-scale production capabilities, which lead to lower operational costs compared to smaller competitors. This strategic edge allows them to sustain temporary losses while offering reduced prices to drive out competition. Their effective cost management enables them to produce goods or services at a lower expense than their rivals, granting them the power to set prices that competitors struggle to match without incurring financial difficulties.
    
3. Dependence of Consumers: Dominant companies typically have a substantial customer base that relies on their products or services. By offering significant discounts, they can attract additional customers and weaken their competitors' market positions. Consumer dependence plays a vital role, as their purchasing choices can either exacerbate or mitigate the effects of predatory pricing. If consumers continue to favor lower prices without considering the long-term consequences of supporting monopolistic practices, they inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of predatory tactics.

Theories for controlling Predatory Pricing:

1. No rule: Bork, McGee, and Easterbrook suggest that predatory pricing is not a major concern. They argue that since predatory pricing is rare, implementing rules to prevent it could lead to errors and issues. They believe that companies are unlikely to succeed with predatory pricing tactics as competitors will fight back and survive the low prices. Easterbrook further explains that actions that may appear predatory, such as significant price reductions or competitive strategies, can actually benefit consumers. Therefore, creating regulations against predatory pricing could inadvertently harm fair competition.
    
2. Short run cost-based rules: Areeda and Turner devised a set of guidelines for companies to determine their prices in order to prevent unfair competition. Their focus was on short-term pricing, whether their prices of product covered the production costs or not, rather than knowing the reasons behind the company's pricing decisions. They believed in granting companies the freedom to set prices to foster healthy competition, but also preventing unfair practices. They proposed that if a company set prices below the cost of production, it could be deemed unfair. However, they also acknowledged that prices above a certain threshold should be permissible. Over time, they made some adjustments to their rules. They stated that prices above a specific level should be presumed fair, while prices below another level should be presumed unfair.
    
3. Long term cost-based rules: According to Posner, to determine if a company is using predatory pricing, it's better to focus on the long-term costs rather than the short-term costs. Posner also lays out some conditions for this test. The person accusing the company of predatory pricing needs to demonstrate that the market was already set up for Predatory Pricing. Some indicators could include the predatory company operating in multiple markets, while the victim operates in fewer markets, concentrated markets, limited opportunities for new companies to enter.
   
   He also believes that there should be evidence showing that the predatory company had the intention to eliminate competitors, although proving this can be difficult since smart companies won't leave any obvious traces. Posner is open to the idea of allowing a company to defend itself by showing that they adjusted their prices due to shifts in supply or demand.
    
4. Output Expansion Rules: Williamson asserts that when a new company enters the market, the dominant firm should not abruptly increase its production. He believes that doing so could pose a problem. Instead, he proposes that the dominant firm should wait for approximately 12-18 months to allow the new company to establish itself. During this period, the large company should refrain from significantly reducing its prices, as this would create difficulties for the new company. Once the new company is established, the rules ensure that both companies can produce goods at a lower cost. However, not everyone agrees with Williamson. Some individuals, like McGee, argue that his ideas are impractical because big companies do not actually increase production when a new company enters the market.
    
5. Rules Governing Price Rises: Baumol suggested that if a company lowers its prices to get rid of competition, it has to keep those low prices for a while, like five years. This way, the company can't just make quick profits by raising prices again right after scaring off the new competitor. This rule aims to make sure companies can't easily take advantage of their monopoly power. However, some people, like Areeda and Turner, didn't think Baumol's idea would work well. They were worried that companies could find ways to sneakily raise prices again, using excuses like changes in costs or demand.
    
6. Rule of Reasons Tests: Scherer wanted to take a closer look at various factors, such as the motives behind the big company's actions and the long-term consequences. He believed that solely focusing on short-term costs wouldn't be sufficient. According to Scherer, we should consider the bigger picture, including the efficiency of companies, the optimal size for efficiency, and the impact of the big company's actions on smaller ones. Now, there are others like Phlips who agree with Scherer. Phlips even devised a test where the harmed company (the victim) must demonstrate that the actions of the big company turned a promising business opportunity into a negative one. Similarly, Schwarz and Stelzer believe in examining multiple factors such as prices, capacity, investments, and a company's behavior in the market.
    
7. "Two Tier" Rules:Joskow and Klevorick's two-tier approach offers a comprehensive strategy. The first tier involves a thorough examination of short-term monopoly power, entry conditions, and dynamic market effects. Only if these factors indicate a potential risk of predation then, the second tier comes into play. The second tier follows a rule-of-reason approach, taking into account intent and incorporating cost-based tests to scrutinize pricing behaviour. Prices below average variable costs are considered predatory, aggressive pricing, price below cost incurred.

In conclusion, while Joskow and Klevorick's two-tier approach offers a promising strategy for addressing predatory pricing in today's modern world, it depends on various factors and the ability of regulatory agencies to adapt to changing market dynamics.

Impact of Predatory Pricing

Consumers:

While predatory pricing might appear advantageous to consumers at first because of reduced prices, it can lead to various adverse effects over time. Key consequences of predatory pricing for consumers include:

• A Decline in consumer options: When a company engages in predatory pricing and successfully establishes a monopoly in a market, consumers find themselves with no alternative but to depend on that particular business for its products or services. This situation reduces the variety of choices available, placing consumers at the mercy of the monopolistic entity regarding product availability and accessibility. Furthermore, the absence of competition can result in inferior quality of goods or services and reduce the motivation for companies to innovate and improve their offerings. To sustain low prices and eliminate competitors, a firm employing predatory pricing may sacrifice quality by reducing expenses. Consequently, consumers may notice a decline in the overall quality of the products or services they receive. With diminished competition, companies may feel less compelled to allocate resources toward research and development for new and enhanced products.
• Initial discounts followed by potential hiking in prices: Companies that provide introductory discounts can have a substantial impact on consumer behavior by luring them in with attractive pricing and offers. Although consumers may enjoy the advantage of lower prices at first, the long-term effects can be detrimental. Once rivals are either eliminated or weakened through aggressive pricing strategies, these companies may take advantage of their strengthened market position by increasing prices. This abrupt shift can catch consumers off guard, resulting in higher expenses for products and services. The temporary benefit of initial discounts may be overshadowed by the risk of future price increases, which can adversely affect consumer welfare and decision-making. The airline sector exemplifies how predatory pricing practices can negatively influence consumer well-being.

Market and competition

Predatory pricing, has the potential to greatly disturb the dynamics of the market in the long term. Some major impacts of predatory pricing on market include:

• Increased Market Share: When predatory pricing drives competitors, especially smaller and financially vulnerable ones, out of the market, the predatory firm frequently experiences a rise in market share, positioning itself to create a monopoly or near-monopoly. After the competition has been eradicated or substantially reduced, the predatory company is usually able to increase prices without limitations. Example: In the community, numerous retail outlets serve the local population by providing a diverse range of products. However, the introduction of the prominent ABC department store significantly alters the landscape. ABC launches its store with prices that undercut those of existing retailers, drawing in customers who are keen to buy similar items at lower costs. Consequently, the local stores begin to experience a drop in clientele and a downturn in sales. In a bid to win back their customers, these retailers first attempt to reduce their prices or align them with ABC's. Unfortunately, they struggle to remain viable in this intensified competition and ultimately have to shut their doors. This situation paves the way for a monopoly, enabling ABC to raise its prices since customers have no other viable alternatives.
   
• Consequences for Small Businesses and New Entrants: Predatory pricing represents a major challenge for small enterprises and emerging market entrants. These businesses frequently lack the financial capacity to endure extended phases of artificially reduced prices imposed by dominant competitors. In contrast to larger corporations, small businesses generally function with limited budgets and reduced economies of scale, which complicates their ability to compete in an environment where prices are driven below cost. The threat of predatory pricing can deter aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses from entering markets dominated by large firms recognized for their aggressive pricing strategies.

Justification and Defences
In numerous jurisdictions, it is acknowledged that a valid business, objective, efficiency justification, or legitimate commercial reasons, can serve as a defence in cases of predatory pricing or prevent an initial determination of predation. Some arguments suggest that no justifications or defenses are allowed for predatory pricing. Nevertheless, in two of these jurisdictions, it is recognized that justifications could be presented to show that the dominant firm did not have the necessary intent to misuse its dominant position.

The following are examples of justifications which jurisdictions indicate may be relied upon to justify or defend a predatory pricing claim:

• The price is being offered at a discounted rate as part of a promotional campaign.
• Price reduction is necessary to enter a new market, or to introduce a new product.
• In a price war situation, a company may opt to align its prices with the low price levels prevailing in the market.
• A low price strategy can also enable a company to reduce production costs through a 'learning by doing' effect.
• Products are sold off at a low price due to damage, being part of an incomplete set, or being impaired.

Role of Competition Authority in Controlling Predatory Pricing
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established under the Competition Act of 2002 and serves as a legal authority dedicated to fostering fair and competitive economic practices throughout the nation. Its main objective is to prevent the abuse of market dominance by businesses.

The CCI has the authority to investigate claims of predatory pricing in accordance with Section 19 of the Competition Act. If the CCI finds sufficient grounds against a company, it can act independently (suo moto). Investigations can be initiated from various sources, including individuals, consumers, their associations, trade bodies, referrals from the Central or State Government, statutory authorities, or complaints submitted with the requisite fee as outlined by regulations.

Upon receiving information under Section 19, if the Commission determines that a prima facie case exists, it can direct the Director General of Investigations to prepare a report within a designated timeframe for the Competition Commission. This report is then shared with the relevant parties. Should the report indicate a breach of any provisions of the Act, the Commission will invite feedback or objections from interested parties. After a comprehensive evaluation of the Director General's findings and the responses received, the Commission may issue appropriate directives or request further investigation.

Case Laws:

1. MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (2011): The case centered on accusations of market dominance abuse in the stock exchange services sector in India. MCX-SX claimed that the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) practiced predatory pricing, a form of unfair pricing. In the matter of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (2011), the Competition Commission of India (CCI) concluded that predatory pricing is categorized as unfair pricing, which does not have a precise definition and must be assessed based on the specifics of each situation. The CCI noted that there was no valid justification for the NSE to provide its services at no cost for an extended period. The CCI found that the NSE possessed a dominant market position and engaged in abusive conduct. As a result, the CCI imposed a fine on the NSE, requiring it to pay a penalty amounting to 5% of its average turnover over the last three years, which is INR 55.5 crores. This penalty was a consequence of the NSE's unfair policy of offering services at zero price in the market.
    
2. Google LLC and Another v. Competition Commission of India & Ors: Concerns have been raised by Mr. Umar Javeed, Ms. Sukarma Thapar, and Mr. Aaqib Javeed regarding Google's alleged infringement of the Competition Act, 2002. They pointed out that while the Android operating system is available at no cost, Google's dominance over it creates an environment of unfair competition. They explained that Google requires device manufacturers to pre-install its services, such as Google Maps and Gmail, which are not easily substituted by users. This practice provides Google with a competitive edge in the market. The informants assert that Google engages in unfair business practices within India, claiming that the company compels manufacturers to exclusively pre-install Google applications and services to gain access to Google Mobile Services (GMS), thereby obstructing the entry of competing apps and services. In light of these allegations, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has initiated an investigation under Section 4 of the Act. The CCI concluded that Google's conduct stifles technological advancement and adversely affects consumers, constituting an abuse of its dominant position. Nevertheless, the CCI acknowledged Google's market dominance based on its revenue and overall market share. Consequently, Google was penalized over ₹1337 crore by the CCI for the misuse of its dominant position as per the Competition Act, 2002. The Supreme Court of India upheld the CCI's fine against Google for its abuse of dominance in the smartphone operating system sector, dismissing Google's appeal. Attempts to seek relief from both the NCLAT and the Supreme Court were unsuccessful, leading Google to agree to comply with the CCI's decision and pay the imposed penalty.
    
3. Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd vs Competition Commission Of India: Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd, an IT trading firm based in Delhi, has filed a complaint against Intel Corporation. The complaint asserts that Intel has recently altered its warranty policy. Previously, Intel provided a warranty that was valid globally for its products. However, as of April 25, 2016, the warranty coverage has been restricted to products acquired from authorized distributors in India, excluding those purchased from other countries. Matrix contends that this change adversely affects the Indian market and consumers.
   
   They argue that Intel's actions contravene several provisions of Indian competition law, including unfair and discriminatory practices, which limit opportunities for other resellers and parallel importers, and deny warranty coverage for products not sourced from authorized distributors, thereby restricting market access. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has identified preliminary evidence of violations under Section 4 of the Competition Act, leading to an investigation into possible anticompetitive conduct. The CCI has established a prima facie case indicating a potential abuse of dominant market position by Intel.
   
   
   In a ruling that posed a setback for Intel, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the company's challenge against the CCI's directive. Notably, Intel was imposed a significant fine of Rupees Ten Lakhs (One Million) for its unsuccessful legal efforts. The Karnataka High Court characterized Intel's legal challenge as an instance of misusing the writ jurisdiction of the Constitution of India, asserting that the writ petition was an attempt to delay or obstruct the proceedings initiated by the CCI.
    
4. Belaire Owner's Association v. DLF Ltd: DLF Builders launched the Belaire housing complex in Gurgaon, which originally comprised 368 flats. However, during construction, the number of floors in each building was increased from 19 to 29, resulting in a total of 564 flats. The completion of the apartments faced a delay of two years. The Belaire Owner's Association (BOA) alleged that DLF was taking advantage of its market position by including unreasonable terms in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement.

(ABA). In response, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated a preliminary investigation and uncovered indications of possible misconduct, prompting them to call for a more detailed inquiry by the Director General (DG). The subsequent investigation revealed that DLF had indeed breached the Competition Act.

In Belaire Owner's Association v. DLF Ltd., the main issue was whether the Competition Act, 2002 applied.

1. DLF argued that sale of apartments did not fall under the Competition Act's purview as it didn't constitute goods or services.
2. DLF claimed that since the agreement was made earlier than amendments, abuse of dominance provisions shouldn't apply.

However, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) ruled that DLF's housing activities constituted services and the 2009 amendments applied retroactively to agreements.

DLF was found to occupy a dominant position in the Indian real estate market due to its 45% market share. DLF has been held accountable for exploiting its dominant position by imposing unfair practices encompassed making unilateral modifications to agreements, lack of transparency regarding changes in construction plans, and commencing construction without obtaining necessary approvals. COMPAT has upheld CCI's verdict and imposed a penalty of INR 6,300 million on DLF.

Conclusion
Predatory pricing refers to the strategy of temporarily lowering prices to eliminate competitors, often disregarding efficiency, with the goal of acquiring or sustaining market dominance. Competition laws are designed to safeguard both consumers and rival businesses from the adverse effects of such pricing tactics.

The practice of predatory pricing by market leaders is a contentious issue within competition law. It poses several challenges, including the creation of substantial obstacles for new entrants attempting to penetrate the market. When established companies deliberately reduce prices to unsustainable levels, it hampers the ability of potential competitors to thrive. Although consumers may enjoy lower prices in the short term due to these predatory tactics, the long- term repercussions can be detrimental. A decrease in competition may foster monopolistic

behaviour, leading to increased prices once rivals are driven out. Furthermore, predatory pricing disrupts market dynamics by discouraging new entrants and suppressing competition, which can stifle innovation, limit consumer options, and ultimately damage the market ecosystem.

Distinguishing between legitimate competition and predatory practices is complex. Regulatory authorities must remain vigilant in detecting and addressing predatory pricing to ensure a fair marketplace for all stakeholders. It is crucial to establish a robust regulatory framework that promotes innovation, deters anti-competitive behaviour, and protects consumer interests to

maintain competitive and healthy markets. Effective enforcement and clear guidelines are necessary to prevent dominant firms from employing predatory pricing strategies that compromise fair competition and disrupt market dynamics.

In short, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has shown its dedication to regulating predatory pricing and preventing abuse of dominance by imposing penalties. Through the rigorous enforcement of competition laws, the CCI has significantly contributed to maintaining a fair marketplace for businesses while safeguarding consumers against anti-competitive behaviours. Its investigations and subsequent penalties on those involved in predatory pricing have been pivotal. Additionally, these measures have cultivated a competitive landscape that promotes innovation, efficiency, and equitable pricing, ultimately serving the interests of both businesses and consumers.