Competition Commission of India: In the Information filed by Matrix Info System Pvt Ltd (‘informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Intel Corporation alleging contravention to Section 3 and 4 of the Act, the bench comprising of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) stated that Intel abused its dominant position by enforcing an unfair and discriminatory India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors imported from authorized overseas distributors. This conduct violated Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act caused appreciable adverse effect on competition in the Indian market and denied consumers proper warranty service on genuine Intel products between 25-4-2016 and 1-4-2024. Further, after considering mitigating factors, such as Intel operating in a dynamic technology market, its full cooperation during the investigation, and withdrawal of the India-specific warranty policy, CCI imposed a fine of Rs. 27.38 crore on Intel for violating Section 4 of the Act.
Background
In the present case, the informant is a Delhi-based IT private trading company incorporated in 2015 under the Companies Act, 2013 that imports and sells computer parts, including Intel microprocessors in India. The informant stated itself to be a parallel importer, 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.
Prior to 2016, Intel provided a worldwide warranty on its Boxed Micro-Processors. This meant customers in India could claim warranty even if the product was purchased abroad. However, from 25-04-2016, Intel introduced an India-Specific Warranty Policy, under which warranty in India would be given only if the processor was purchased from Intel’s authorized Indian distributors. If bought from outside India, customers won’t be able to claim warranty inside India.
The informant claimed that this policy affected its business and other independent resellers because customers preferred products with valid Indian warranty. It also alleged that the policy reduced consumer choice and allowed Intel’s authorized distributors in India to charge higher prices though bought at very low prices from abroad. The Informant further argued that Intel is being dominant in the Indian market for boxed microprocessors and misused this dominance by imposing unfair conditions, unfair pricing and restricting market access to parallel or competitor importers.
At the beginning, the CCI found a prima facie case and ordered an investigation. Intel challenged this before the Karnataka High Court, wherein the petition was dismissed. Intel filed an interlocutory application stating that its warranty service policy in India to a world-wide warranty service policy, effective from 1-4-2024 due to business reasons.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
1. Relevant Market
CCI stated that the relevant market has two dimensions: the relevant product market and the relevant geographic market. CCI noted that a micro-processor is a type of miniature electronic device that contains arithmetic, logic and control circuitry, necessary to perform the functions of a digital computer’s CPU. Intel has two types of Intel micro-processors for PCs: (a) Tray microprocessors, and (b) Boxed microprocessors.
CCI stated that the investigation established boxed microprocessors are supplied only for desktop PCs in India, as neither Intel nor its competitor sell boxed microprocessors for laptops. Further, authorized distributors confirmed that they have no arrangements for laptop boxed microprocessors with the opposite party. Accordingly, CCI delineated the relevant product market as “Boxed Microprocessors for Desktop PCs in India.”
CCI noted that Intel does not manufacture microprocessors in India; instead, all products are imported either directly or through authorized distributors abroad. CCI further observed that the allegations relate specifically to changes in warranty policy applicable to India, thereby affecting Indian consumers under an India-specific framework. Since competition conditions are uniform throughout the country, CCI determined the relevant geographic market to be India and accordingly defined the relevant market as “Boxed Microprocessors for Desktop PCs in India.”
2. Assessment of dominance and abuse thereof
CCI noted that Intel is consistently leading the market of Boxed Microprocessors for desktop PCs with a significantly high market share. Throughout 2016 to 2021, Intel remained the top player. Thus, the Intel was in a dominant position from 2016 to 2021. Further, Intel held proprietary right over x86 architecture and is manufacturing most diversified variants of micro-processors in India. Major computer manufacturers like Acer, Apple, ASUS, Dell etc. are selling their PCs with inbuilt micro-processors manufactured by Intel. This increases the dependence of distributors as well as final consumers on Intel.
CCI observes the finding of the DG that Intel abused its dominance by way of introducing India Specific Warranty Policy, which was:
-
Discriminatory in nature, when compared to its warranty policy in China, Australia and rest of the world;
-
compelled parallel importers to buy boxed microprocessors only from its authorized Indian distributors at higher prices, instead of sourcing them cheaper from overseas. This reduced consumer choice, kept prices high, and restricted competition in the Indian market, violating Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act.; and
-
affected the sales of parallel importers whose sales remained constant or declined despite growth in the industry, leading to denial of market access in Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
3. Unfair and/or discriminatory condition
CCI observed that Intel had a global warranty policy but applied a separate India-specific warranty with restrictive conditions, unlike the policies in Australia and China. This India-specific policy was found to be unfair and discriminatory under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it deprived Indian consumers of proper warranty service on genuine Intel boxed microprocessors from 2016 until Intel withdrew the policy in 2024.
CCI stated that by introducing India Specific Warranty Policy, OP encouraged parallel importers/ traders to buy from authorized distributers at higher prices. It also limited the choice of end consumers in India and forced them to buy from authorized distributers in India at relatively higher prices, in contravention of Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act. CCI stated that change in warranty policy resulted in an increase in sales of authorized distributors of Intel to the disadvantage of parallel importers thereby causing denial of market access in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
4. Appreciable adverse effect on competition
CCI noted that a warranty is one of the relevant factors in the purchase of a boxed microprocessor as it protects against manufacturing defects, minimizes costs associated with premature failure, and offers peace of mind to the consumer. Further, Intel’s own warranty claim data from 2016—2021 shows that its microprocessors can fail. Given the critical role of microprocessors in desktop PCs, denying warranty service in India for products bought from authorized overseas distributors could harm consumers and create an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the Indian market.
5. Conclusion
CCI concluded that Intel abused its dominant position by enforcing an unfair and discriminatory India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors imported from authorized overseas distributors. This conduct violated Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Act, caused appreciable adverse effect on competition in the Indian market, and denied consumers proper warranty service on genuine Intel products between 25-4-2016 and 1-4-2024.
After considering mitigating factors, such as Intel operating in a dynamic technology market, its full cooperation during the investigation, and withdrawal of the India-specific warranty policy, CCI imposed a fine of Rs. 27.38 crore on Intel for violating Section 4 of the Act. CCI noted that Intel withdrew its India-specific warranty policy from 1-4-2024 and directed Intel to widely publicize this change to raise consumer awareness and submit a compliance report.
[Matrix Info System (P) Ltd v. Intel Corpn., 2026 SCC OnLine CCI 6, decided on 12-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Khyati Dhupar ,Adv; Yashwardhan Singh, Adv; Swarendu Chatterejee, Adv; Sunil Jain; Priyanka Jain ; Prachi Jain
For the Respondent: Samar Bansal, Adv;Karan Chandhiok, Adv;Tarushi Guliani, Adv;Aileen Aditi Sundardas,Adv; Evangelina Almirantearena
For Intel Technology India Private Limited: Karan Chandhiok, Adv.; Avinash Amarnath, Adv; Nicky Collins, Adv.