Breaking: Dentsu breaks silence, admits to blowing whistle in CCI’s media cartel probe
The CCI’s leniency program, which incentivizes cartel members to come forward in exchange for reduced penalties or immunity, has emerged as a key tool in uncovering covert agreements.
ADVERTISEMENT
Three months after the Competition Commission of India (CCI) raided several top advertising agencies and industry bodies over alleged cartelization, Japanese media conglomerate Dentsu has confirmed that it was the whistleblower behind the investigation — a move it says was aimed at driving “reform from within.”
The raids, conducted in March across nearly 10 locations, targeted prominent agencies including Dentsu, GroupM, Publicis, Havas, IPG, and Madison, along with industry associations like the AAAI (Advertising Agencies Association of India), ISA (Indian Society of Advertisers), and IBDF (Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation). The inquiry centers on allegations of fixing ad rates and discounts, potentially violating Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, which addresses anti-competitive horizontal agreements.
Storyboard18 on March 21 had first reported about CCI's leniency program blowing off the lid from alleged media cartelization.
Dentsu in a statement to Storyboard18 said, "Dentsu India is among the country’s leading agency networks and with that comes the responsibility to act with integrity and accountability. We had a choice – to remain passive or drive change."
"In February 2024, we proactively approached the Competition Commission of India (CCI) suo moto under its Leniency framework. This was not a reaction to external pressure but a decision to support reform from within.
"We proactively implemented meaningful changes including enhanced audits, stricter governance, and tighter internal controls. These reflect our ongoing commitment to build trust through transparency, action, and accountability to safeguard the interest of our clients."
"Change can't be affected by walking away – this may be a challenging moment for an industry we are proud to be a part of, but it also presents an opportunity for collective reform. At Dentsu India we are committed to this change for our clients and the future of a thriving industry."
The CCI’s leniency program, which incentivizes cartel members to come forward in exchange for reduced penalties or immunity, has emerged as a key tool in uncovering covert agreements. By offering legal protections to the first cooperating entity, the program aims to break the code of silence that often surrounds cartel behavior.
Legal experts note that proving a cartel under Section 3(3) involves more than demonstrating parallel pricing — authorities must also show intent or coordinated action through direct or circumstantial evidence, such as communication records, trade body meetings, or synchronized rate changes.
The outcome of the probe could be seismic. If sufficient evidence is found, it may lead not only to heavy fines for those involved but also to long-term reforms in how media buying is structured in India. CCI’s actions are being closely watched as a test case for regulatory enforcement in the high-stakes world of advertising and broadcasting.
CCI's introduction of leniency programs has led to a notable increase in successfully prosecuting the cartels. By providing a safe avenue for whistleblowers, these programs have uncovered cartels that might have otherwise remained hidden, enhancing the overall effectiveness of anti-cartel enforcement.
Leniency programs reduce fines or offer immunity to the first cartel member who cooperates with authorities, thereby destabilizing the cartel's secrecy. The introduction of leniency programs has led to a notable increase in successfully prosecuting cartels.
According to CCI lawyers, proving a violation of Section 3(3) requires establishing an anti-competitive agreement between cartel members. The CCI must first demonstrate the existence of such an agreement, which can include any formal or informal arrangement, understanding, or action in concert. While direct evidence such as contracts, emails, or meeting records is ideal, the CCI often relies on circumstantial evidence like parallel pricing, identical bids, or communication via trade associations to infer collusion.
The CCI also considers "plus factors," additional indicators beyond mere parallel behavior, such as suspicious timing of price changes or communication records that suggest coordinated actions. However, unilateral price increases without evidence of coordination do not automatically constitute a violation.
As the investigation progresses, all eyes are on the CCI’s next moves. If strong evidence of cartelization emerges, hefty penalties and long-term regulatory reforms could reshape the media buying industry in India. One thing is certain—this crackdown is not just about punishing violators but about setting the tone for a more accountable and competitive future in media advertising.
