How Samsung is Fighting Back Against Antitrust Allegations

The CCI cloned the phones of three Samsung employees present during a raid on Appario Retail, an Amazon reseller, in 2022. According to Samsung, this was unlawful. Samsung contends that sensitive and private information about its business activities, such as pricing strategy and product plans, are contained in the confiscated data. To stop the CCI from using any information gathered during this raid in its continuing investigation into anti-competitive activities involving e-commerce sites like Amazon and Flipkart, Samsung has filed a lawsuit in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Samsung argues that the CCI's evidence-collection techniques were illegal, raising questions regarding privacy invasions and the investigation's objectivity. Samsung first participated in the inquiry as a third party. However, now that the raid has occurred, the CCI is trying to label Samsung as an "opposite party," which might significantly impact its legal standing in this lawsuit.

Why has Samsung filed a lawsuit?

Samsung is trying to safeguard its interests and lessen potential harm from the investigation by contesting the CCI's activities in court. This legal tactic seeks to stop or restrict the antitrust investigation against it.

Samsung can buy time and even change its story about its interactions with e-commerce platforms by obtaining a stay on the inquiry while appeals occur. It aims to preserve its standing as a conscientious company that respects employee privacy and complies with legal requirements by openly challenging the CCI's practices.

Why Is Samsung Acting in This Way?

• Samsung asserts that it was unlawful to clone employee phones during the CCI's raid. The business contends that the data seized includes private information about its operations, such as plans for product launches and pricing tactics, which should have been gathered differently.

• Samsung wants to stop any evidence gathered during this operation from being used by the CCI in its current inquiry. The business contends that since this material was obtained illegally, Samsung should not be considered an "opposite party" in the dispute, which would drastically change its legal position.

• Samsung has expressed worries about possible abuses of privacy rights, claiming that the information gathered from its workers violates their constitutionally protected fundamental rights.

In this case, Samsung is attempting to stop the CCI probe, which is part of a broader legal struggle. Until decisions are rendered on Samsung's and other relevant appeals filed in multiple high courts, the High Court has halted the investigation. Last week, the CCI petitioned the Supreme Court to transfer 24 identical applications that other parties, including Flipkart and Amazon merchants, brought.

The CCI reportedly gathered proof of transactions between the electronics company and e-commerce platforms from the phones retrieved from Samsung employees. According to attorneys with knowledge of the development, this includes information on price, inventory, and product launch tactics.

Additionally, Samsung has asked the court to forbid the CCI from sharing any information gathered during the operation. The business referred to Section 57 of the Competition Act, which stipulates that data collected by the CCI may only be shared with the enterprise's express authorization.

Samsung said that such disclosures would violate the fundamental rights of the people whose data was gathered, specifically their right to privacy as protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. Samsung complied with many CCI data requests months before the raid. The business disclosed the specifics of its contractual agreements with e-commerce platforms in November 2021. The CCI requested details regarding 15 Samsung phones in 2023, including sales numbers and earnings. Additionally, it asked for information on how 14 distinct phone models contributed to Samsung's FY22 revenue, which the firm provided.

Conclusion

The High Court will examine Samsung's arguments on the legitimacy of the evidence-gathering procedure. Depending on its decision, Samsung may be able to disassociate itself from the inquiry or be forced to submit to more regulatory scrutiny. The result might also impact how regulatory agencies gather evidence in antitrust lawsuits and how other businesses handle comparable investigations. In conclusion, Samsung is challenging the CCI's procedures to safeguard its commercial interests and preserve its legal position in the face of continuous criticism of Indian e-commerce activities.

Read More:

RRP Electronics signs MoU with AMB, Taiwan for memory modules production

Siemens’ Solido SPICE certified for multiple leading-edge Samsung Foundry processes

Samsung, Xiaomi To Face Legal Trouble: Here's Why

Jio Star: Will the New Platform Outshine Netflix and Amazon Prime?