New Delhi, 05 January 2026 : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has declined to intervene in allegations of anti-competitive conduct against Eros International Media Ltd over the AI-altered re-release of the Hindi film Raanjhanaa. The Commission held that no prima facie case of violation of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out and ordered closure of the proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Act.
The decision was delivered by a coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag in an order dated January 5, 2026, closing Case No. 28 of 2025. The matter arose from an information filed by two advocates under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging that Eros International had unlawfully altered the ending of Raanjhanaa using artificial intelligence and re-released the modified version in Tamil Nadu in August 2025.
According to the informants, the film, originally released in 2013, is protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and while Eros held theatrical and television distribution rights, it did not possess the right to alter the film’s content. They claimed that the AI-based modification of the ending, followed by theatrical re-release and proposed OTT distribution, amounted to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.
The informants further alleged misuse of exclusive distribution arrangements and collusion with distributors and OTT platforms, resulting in price manipulation, foreclosure of competition, and harm to consumer choice. On this basis, they sought an investigation by the CCI, a permanent restraint on further screening and distribution of the altered version, and interim relief under Section 33 of the Act.
After examining the material on record, the Commission noted that the core grievance related to alteration of the film’s content and the rights associated with such alteration. It observed that the dispute, if any, was essentially contractual or private in nature and did not warrant intervention by the competition regulator. The CCI found that the informants had failed to establish Eros’s dominance in any relevant market, the existence of an anti-competitive agreement, or a nexus between the impugned conduct and an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.
The Commission also clarified that concerns surrounding the use of new technology or intellectual property exploitation do not, by themselves, attract scrutiny under competition law. Concluding that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 was made out, the CCI ordered closure of the information under Section 26(2). Consequently, the requests for interim relief under Section 33 were rejected, and the interlocutory applications stood disposed of. The Commission added that any remedy available to the informants would lie before an appropriate forum outside the Competition Act framework.
