CCI Fines Intel ₹27.38 Crore For Abuse of Dominance Over Desktop Microprocessors Warranty Policy

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a Rs. 27.38 crore penalty on Intel Corporation for abusing its dominant position in India through an India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors.

The order was passed by a coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag.

The case arose from an information filed by Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based IT trading firm engaged in parallel imports of Intel products.

Until April 25, 2016, Intel offered worldwide warranty service on its boxed microprocessors. It then amended the policy to restrict warranty service in India only to products purchased from its authorised Indian distributors.

The Commission defined the relevant market as “Boxed Microprocessors for Desktop PCs in India.” It found Intel dominant in this market, noting its consistently high market share and limited competitive constraint from AMD during the relevant period.

The CCI held that Intel's India-specific warranty policy amounted to imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act. It pointed out that Intel had not imposed similar restrictions in countries such as China and Australia.

The Commission also found that the policy limited the market and denied market access to parallel importers, breaching Sections 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c). According to the CCI, refusing warranty service solely because a product was purchased outside India discouraged the import of genuine Intel processors available at lower prices in overseas markets.

The Commission rejected Intel's argument that the policy was necessary to tackle counterfeit and grey-market products. It noted that Intel already had tools in place to verify the authenticity of its processors and that the denial of warranty in India was based only on where the product was bought.

The CCI further clarified that earlier decisions in Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal and Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung did not apply to the present case, as the factual context in those matters was materially different.

The penalty was computed at 8% of Intel's average relevant turnover from boxed microprocessors in India for the preceding three financial years. Intel's withdrawal of the India-specific warranty policy with effect from April 1, 2024 was treated as a mitigating factor.

The company has been directed to deposit the penalty within 60 days and to widely publicise the withdrawal of the impugned policy.

Intel Technology India Private Limited was deleted from the array of opposite parties, as it was not engaged in the manufacture or sale of microprocessors in India.

For Informant: Advocates Khyati Dhupar, Yashwardhan Singh, and Swarendu Chatterjee

For Opposite Party: Advocates Samar Bansal, Karan Chandhiok, Tarushi Guliani, and Aileen Aditi Sundardas for Intel Corporation; Advocates Karan Chandhiok, Avinash Amarnath, and Nicky Collins for Intel Technology Pvt. Ltd.