Premature to allow settlement in cartel cases: Deepak Anurag, Member CCI

It would be premature to extend the new settlement and commitment framework to cartel cases in India, Deepak Anurag, Member of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), has said, cautioning that such cases often carry criminal implications and involve serious violations, particularly in government contracts.

Speaking at the CII-CCI Conference on Competition Law and Practice in Mumbai, Anurag observed that while the recently introduced mechanisms for settlements and commitments are an important step forward, they need to be applied with caution and within carefully defined limits.

“There is a way which is reformed and takes things forward. It is supposed to lead to faster resolution, and once a matter is closed, we can move on to normal business. That will have a salutary effect on the economy,” he noted, referring to the objective behind the new regime.

However, he emphasised that the approach must be balanced against potential long-term risks. According to him, settlement proposals typically involve commitments on behavioural changes and, in some cases, monetary payouts. “These are significant steps, but they also involve difficult compromises,” he remarked.

Anurag pointed out that companies weighing the option of settlement often face complex choices. There are concerns around whether such resolutions would truly bring finality or expose firms to fresh risks, including possible compensation claims. “The whole issue is about balancing risks. Companies will still be weighing what the risks are and what the rewards are. That is not an easy decision,” he said.

He acknowledged that while the current legal framework provides certain guardrails on how settlement or commitment documents can be used, much will depend on how these provisions work in practice. The recent decision of a large technology company to opt for settlement, he said, was “a big vote of confidence in the regime” and could encourage others to consider similar routes.

At the same time, he underlined that the law still allows for compensation claims even after penalties or settlements, creating an element of uncertainty. “Until the law is amended or reviewed, that risk will remain,” he observed, adding that it would be useful to study how often such claims have actually arisen in past cases.

Turning specifically to cartels, Anurag expressed strong reservations about permitting settlements in such matters. Cartels, he argued, are fundamentally different from other antitrust violations and frequently involve collusion in public procurement. “Cartels often have a criminal connotation as well. In India, we have found that many cartel cases are in government contracts, which violate multiple rules and regulations,” he explained.

Granting cartel participants an easy exit through settlements, he warned, could amount to giving them “a free pass.” That is why, in his view, the settlement route should be restricted to less serious violations at this stage.

His caution comes against the backdrop of several high-profile cartel probes in recent years, including the CCI’s investigation launched in March 2025 into alleged price-fixing and collusion among major advertising agencies. The probe involved global networks such as Publicis, WPP’s GroupM, Dentsu, Omnicom, Havas, Madison and IPG, along with industry bodies like the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA). The investigation has been mired in procedural challenges, with Publicis arguing that denial of access to preliminary findings violated principles of natural justice under the Competition Act and infringed constitutional protections. The case highlighted the complexity and sensitivity of cartel matters, reinforcing Anurag’s view that such violations may not be suitable for quick settlements.

He also touched upon the challenge of encouraging whistleblowers to come forward in competition cases. Unlike in some other jurisdictions, India lacks a robust system for rewarding whistleblowers, and people remain reluctant to share information even when protections exist. “Whistleblower mechanisms do not really work in India in any meaningful way,” he said candidly.

Anurag stressed the importance of stronger compliance measures within companies to prevent antitrust issues from arising in the first place. He welcomed suggestions from participants on improving internal training, reviewing contracts and arrangements, and proactively identifying potential competition law risks.

“That is the responsibility of corporates and the lawyers advising them,” he added.

Concluding his remarks, the CCI member noted that the new settlement framework is still in its early days and should be allowed time to evolve. “It is too early to start changing things at this stage. We need to see how the system works in practice before expanding its scope,” he said.