Competition Commission of India Order regarding Intel Corporation Warranty Policy · Case No. 05 of 2019

Public Version
Case No. 05 of 2019

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 05 of 2019
In Re:

Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd.
207 Bajaj House, 97 Nehru Place,
New Delhi -110019
Informant

And

Intel Corporation
2200 Mission College Blvd.,
Santa Clara, CA 95054 -1549
United States

Also at: 23 - 56P,
Deverabeesanahalli Varthur Hobli,
Outer Ring Road,
Bangalore-560103
Karnataka, India
Opposite Party

CORAM
Ms. Ravneet Kaur
Chairperson

Mr. Anil Agrawal
Member

Ms. Sweta Kakkad
Member

Mr. Deepak Anurag
Member

Public Version
Case No. 05 of 2019

Appearances during the hearing held on 18.09.2025 and 24.09.2025:

For the Informant
Ms. Khyati Dhupar, Advocate
Mr. Yashwardhan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Swarendu Chatterejee, Advocate (present on 27.08.2025)
Mr. Sunil Jain (Director of the Informant) (present on 24.09.2025)
Ms. Priyanka Jain (authorised representative of the Informant)
Ms. Prachi Jain (Director, Marketing and Operations, Informant)

For Opposite Party
Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Karan Chandhiok, Advocate
Ms Tarushi Guliani, Advocate
Ms. Aileen Aditi Sundardas, Advocate
Ms. Evangelina Almirantearena, (authorised representative of OP)

For Intel Technology India Private Limited (ITIPL)
Mr. Karan Chandhiok, Advocate
Mr. Avinash Amarnath, Advocate
Mr. Nicky Collins, Advocate

Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002

1. This order shall dispose of the case that has arisen from the Information filed by M/s Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, the ‘Informant’/ ‘Matrix’), under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the ‘Act’) against Intel Corporation (hereinafter, the ‘OP/ Intel’) inter alia alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

Facts in brief

2. The Informant stated itself to be a Delhi based Information Technology (‘IT’) trading company, incorporated in 2015 as a private company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of importing, wholesaling, distributing and supplying a wide range of IT products including CPUs, storage solutions, security cameras, RAMs, laptops and other computer consumables as well as accessories including printing supplies, and hard disks etc.

3. OP is a leading multinational corporation and technology company incorporated in California, USA in 1968 and re-incorporated in Delaware, USA in 1989, engaged in the activities of designing and manufacturing of a wide range of IT components, peripherals, computer systems, etc. as well as manufacturing and distribution of electronic devices relating to communications and computing such as micro-processors, chipsets, mother-board, integrated circuit, etc.

4. The Informant stated itself to be a parallel importer of Intel micro-processors in India, which is legally permissible. As per the Informant, parallel imports are beneficial for the consumers as import of goods from a country with lower prices force sellers in the country of destination to reduce prices. The Informant stated that it imports Intel Micro-processors from OP’s authorised distributors in other countries and sells the same to consumers in India at competitive prices.

5. As per the Informant, prior to 2016, Intel used to provide manufacturer’s warranty within India on its Boxed Micro-Processors (‘BMPs’) that may have been purchased from any country in the world. However, w.e.f. 25.04.2016, Intel amended its warranty policy for India. As per this new policy, Intel would entertain warranty requests for Intel BMPs in India only when the same are purchased from an authorised Indian distributor of Intel (‘India Specific Warranty Policy’). As a result of this India Specific Warranty Policy, OP does not acknowledge warranty requests on its BMPs that are purchased from its authorised distributors in the rest of the world and instead redirects them to country of purchase to avail the warranty.In support, the Informant placed on record various communications that took place between the Informant and Intel Technology India Private Limited (‘ITIPL’), the Indian subsidiary of OP. As per the Informant, in some communications, ITIPL falsely alleged that such Micro-Processors are products of Original Equipment Manufacturers (‘OEMs’) i.e., Tray Micro-processors, which are different from BMPs, to avoid acknowledging the warranty.

6. The Informant stated that such change in warranty policy has been made by OP without any legitimate justification and by doing so, OP has been behaving in a differential manner within the Indian market. As per the Informant, such separate warranty terms of Intel for India vis-à-vis the rest of the world, is arbitrary and unfair towards the Indian market and consumers. Quoting the statement of Mr. Rajiv Bhalla, Director, Direct and Channel Sales, Intel South Asia, published in Digit.in on 25.04.2016, the Informant averred that by adopting this new Indian Specific Warranty Policy, OP only intended to protect the market share of its own authorised distributors in India.

7. As per the Informant, because of the changed warranty policy, Indian customers are being forced to purchase Intel’s BMPs only from the authorised distributors of OP in India in order to avail the after-sales warranty within the country. Apart from limiting the choice of customers it also affected the business of independent resellers and parallel importers like the Informant. Further, such policy change gave Intel’s Indian authorised distributors a position of power to sell its BMPs at higher prices. The Informant claimed that though it may be possible to claim warranty on Intel’s Boxed Micro-Processors purchased from outside the country by sending them abroad, but it may not be feasible to do so on account of cross-border restrictions as well as cost and time implications. Hence, as per the Informant, such change in its warranty policy by Intel is abusive in nature and anti-competitive under the provisions of the Act.

8. The Informant delineated the relevant product market as ‘market for sale of boxed Micro-processors for Desktop and Laptop Personal Computers (‘PCs’)’ and relevant geographic market as ‘India’. As per the Informant, in terms of the factors contained in Section 19(4) of the Act, Intel holds a dominant position in the relevant market for ‘sale of Boxed Micro-processors for Desktop and Laptop PCs in India’.

9. The Informant alleged violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act by Intel as it imposes unfair and discriminatory condition that warranty shall be provided only when BMPs are purchased in India from its authorised Indian distributor. Further, the Informant alleged violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by Intel as it limits /restricts the business of other resellers and/or parallel importers and denies market access to them by not providing them warranty on Intel’s BMPs in India when not purchased from the authorised distributors of Intel.

10. The Informant also levelled allegations of contravention of Section 3 of the Act against Intel. As per the Informant, the exclusive agreement between Intel and its authorised Indian distributors which gives them exclusive selling rights in India is violative of Section 3(4)(c) of the Act. The imposition of condition to purchase from only certain sellers/ distributors for claiming warranty in India and blanket ban on after-sales warranties if purchased from other sources is resulting in deprivation of consumer choice which is also violative of the provisions of Section 3(4)(d) of the Act. Further, Intel’s restriction on independent resellers and/or parallel importers, by not providing warranty on Intel’s Boxed Micro-Processors purchased from sellers other than Intel’s authorised distributors in India, is violative of Section 3(4)(e) of the Act.

11. As per the Informant, by way of imposing unfair disadvantage on the independent resellers for selling Intel BMPs at lower prices in comparison to Intel’s authorised distributors, Intel is causing Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (‘AAEC’) in terms of Section 19 of the Act.

12. Based on the above submissions and contentions, the Informant alleged that Intel abused its dominant position by acting in contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

13. The Commission had a preliminary conference with the parties on 02.07.2019.