W.P.(C) 9920/2026, CM APPL. 46171/2026 & CM APPL. 46173/2026, TLG India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Anr.

Background to the proceedings before Delhi High Court

The CCI, acting on a leniency application filed by Dentsu India in February 2024 under Section 46 of the Act initiated an investigation into alleged cartelisation in India’s advertising and media-buying industry. The investigation concerns allegations that several global advertising networks operating in India including Wire and Plastic Products plc’s GroupM, Publicis (through its Indian operating entity, TLG India Pvt. Ltd. (‘TLG’)), Dentsu, Omnicom and others, colluded to fix advertising rates, commissions, and discounts charged to advertisers, in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act. The CCI’s Order, dated February 7, 2025, recorded evidence that the alleged misconduct had been prevalent since at least 2023, with agencies allegedly exchanging commercially sensitive information through WhatsApp groups and coordinating on pre-decided commission structures. Pursuant to that Order the DG conducted coordinated search-and-seizure operations on March 18, 2025, at approximately ten locations across Delhi, Mumbai, and Gurugram linked to the aforesaid agencies and industry bodies.

Scope of the proceedings before DHC

In July 2026, the Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) allowed a writ petition filed by TLG wherein TLG had sought a writ of mandamus directing the CCI to rectify the prima facie Order and substitute it as an opposite party in suo motu case no. 02 of 2024 in place of Publicis Groupe. The counsel for CCI stated that CCI had no objection in adding TLG as a party to the investigation. The said writ petition comes in light of a previous writ petition filed before the DHC wherein TLG had stated that the investigation had been directed not against a legally identifiable ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, but against a vague and undefined brand name, Publicis Groupe, which is not a legal entity in India or France. The DHC had rejected the same on the grounds that whether the entity to whom notice has been issued is correctly described, or whether it answers the definition of an ‘enterprise’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, falls within the domain of the CCI and no cause of action survives in TLG’s favour.