ISLAMABAD – The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has upheld the authority of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) to investigate deceptive marketing practices and anti-competitive behavior in the telecommunications industry.
The high court has rejected petitions from Pakistan’s major telecom companies, including Jazz, Telenor, Zong, Ufone, Warid, PTCL, and Wi-Tribe, challenging CCP’s jurisdiction.
In a comprehensive 19-page judgment, Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas confirmed that the CCP acted within its legal rights under the Competition Act of 2010 when it issued show-cause notices to telecom operators for misleading advertising and hidden service charges levied on prepaid customers.
The court noted that CCP’s mandate covers all sectors of the economy, including telecommunications, and works alongside the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).
The telecom companies had contested CCP’s notices issued between 2013 and 2014, accusing them of imposing undisclosed fees on prepaid cards, which the CCP considered deceptive under Section 10(2)(b) of the Competition Act. Additionally, PTCL and Wi-Tribe had challenged CCP’s scrutiny of “unlimited internet packages” that were, in reality, subject to fair usage policies.
In another case, PTCL sought to block an inquiry by the CCP into allegations of discriminatory pricing in fixed-line services. However, the IHC rejected the telecom firms’ claim that the PTA alone had the authority to regulate competition in the sector. The court stated that the CCP’s jurisdiction is broad, covering all sectors of the economy, including telecommunications. The judgment emphasized that while the PTA focuses on technical and operational regulation, the CCP is responsible for addressing issues related to competition and deceptive marketing.
The IHC also clarified that even regulatory bodies like the PTA fall under CCP’s jurisdiction, citing Section 2(1)(q) of the Competition Act, which defines “undertaking” to include government bodies and regulatory authorities.
The court dismissed the telecom companies’ petitions, calling them premature, as the CCP’s show-cause notices were procedural and not final orders. The judge noted that the petitioners had sufficient legal recourse through the CCP, its appellate bench, and the Competition Appellate Tribunal. The court further observed that intervening at this early stage would hinder the CCP from carrying out its legal responsibilities and undermine the intentions of the Competition Act.
In conclusion, the IHC affirmed the CCP’s authority to investigate and take action against anti-competitive and deceptive marketing practices in the telecom industry, dismissing all related petitions.
