CCI Closes Abuse of Dominance Complaint Against InVideo AI Over Subscription Dispute

The Competition Commission of India on Thursday closed an abuse of dominance case against InVideo AI, a cloud-based digital video generation and translation platform.

It held that a subscriber's grievances over cancellation of his subscription and denial of promised credits were essentially a private dispute and did not raise any competition law concerns.

A bench comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag declined to order an investigation against Whitesheep Technology Private Limited, which operates InVideo AI. The Commission held that no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position had been made out under the Competition Act.

The case arose from information filed by Dinesh Kumar Dadsena, a paid subscriber and user of InVideo AI. Dadsena alleged that a malfunction in the platform's automated translation feature disrupted his work. He said the feature was a core component for multilingual content creation. According to him, the issue was reported to the company immediately. However, the responses were delayed and failed to resolve the problem.

Dadsena claimed that the company later acknowledged the malfunction. He alleged that it promised him 100 AI minutes as compensation. However, only 75 AI minutes were credited.

He further alleged that when he followed up regarding the remaining 25 AI minutes, the company informed him that he was the only consumer in India facing the issue. According to Dadsena, the company then cancelled his subscription despite substantial unused paid AI minutes remaining in his account.

Although a partial refund of ₹5,000 was later issued, Dadsena alleged that the lost AI minutes and disrupted projects were never estored. He also claimed that this caused financial loss and disrupted his workflow.

The informant further contended that InVideo AI enjoyed a dominant position in the market for AI-powered, cloud-based video creation, editing and translation platforms available to consumers and digital creators in India. He, therefore, alleged that the company's actions amounted to unfair and discriminatory treatment. He also alleged restriction of services and denial of market access.

According to Dadsena, cancellation of his subscription deprived him of access to AI minutes that had already been paid for. He further claimed that it prevented him from continuing to use tools necessary for his work.

Before approaching the Commission, Dadsena pursued the matter through the National Consumer Helpline. The Helpline subsequently advised him to approach the appropriate Consumer Commission.

After Examining the allegations, the Commission noted that the informant's grievance stemmed from the company's alleged conduct in relation to his subscription, compensation claim and access to services. It found that the issues raised were essentially disputes between the parties. The Commission held that they did not disclose any competition law concern warranting intervention under the Competition Act.

On this aspect, the Commission observed:

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and allegations levelled therein, the Commission observes that such issues appear to be in the nature of dispute, if any, between concerned/relevant parties which ipso facto does not require intervention of the Commission."

The Commission further held that the remedies sought by the informant, if available at all, lay before another forum.

"Hence, the Commission is of the view that the issues raised in the instant matter do not raise any competition concern and remedy(ies), if any, may lie before an appropriate forum elsewhere."

Finding no prima facie contravention of the provisions relating to abuse of dominant position, the Commission closed the information at the threshold.