CCI Dismisses Case on AI-Modified Movie Re-release Due to Insufficient Competitive Impact Evidence
Background of the Complaint
Two legal practitioners, Adv Utkarsh Tiwari and Adv Kunwar Arpit Paliwal, approached the Competition Commission of India by filing an Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. The complaint targeted Eros International Media Ltd., alleging violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The crux of their grievance centered around the re-release of a Hindi feature film titled Raanjhanaa, which was initially launched in Indian cinemas during June 2013 and enjoyed copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The complainants maintained that while the production company possessed theatrical and television distribution rights for the film across domestic and international markets, it lacked authorization to modify or alter the film's original content. Such creative rights, they argued, remained exclusively with the director and other creative personnel involved in the filmmaking process, including writers and artists who receive royalty payments from distribution entities.
Core Allegations Made by the Informants
Unauthorized Content Modification Using Artificial Intelligence
The advocates contended that approximately eight years after the film's original theatrical run, the opposite party re-released the movie in Tamil Nadu during August 2025. Significantly, this re-release featured a modified climax sequence that differed from the original version, allegedly created through artificial intelligence technology. The complainants asserted that this alteration was executed according to the production company's preferences without proper authorization.
Alleged Violations Under Competition Law
The Informants alleged multiple contraventions of competition law provisions:
Section 3 Violations: They claimed that exclusive agreements and distribution rights pertaining to the original film content were exploited with the intention of creating an appreciable adverse effect on competition within the Indian market. The complainants suggested that such conduct involved various forms of anti-competitive agreements including:
- Price fixing mechanisms
- Resale price maintenance arrangements
- Geographic market allocation (specifically targeting Tamil Nadu)
- Deliberate reduction of supply or output to enable higher pricing
- Exclusive dealing arrangements
- Tie-in arrangements designed to exclude competing suppliers
Section 4 Violations: The Informants further alleged abuse of dominant position by the opposite party within the motion picture industry's relevant market. They contended that in the absence of regulatory frameworks governing technological alterations to original creative works, the production house exploited its market position to generate profits. The broadcast of the modified version in Tamil Nadu theatres and proposed release on over-the-top (OTT) digital platforms was characterized as conduct intended to adversely impact competition.
Market Impact Concerns
The complainants expressed concern that agreements between the production house and distributors or OTT platforms would affect other market participants, as the opposite party allegedly attempted to abuse its dominant position while entering the artificial intelligence market segment. They argued that consumers would face restricted choices and potentially unreasonable pricing structures.
According to the Informants, the absence of regulatory guidelines under Indian jurisprudence regarding AI-based content modification created a situation where fair pricing for intellectual property rights goods (the feature film) could not be determined. They maintained that the alteration was performed solely to reduce competition or eliminate competitors within the motion picture industry's relevant market.