February 13, 2026 : The Competition Commission of India has imposed a penalty of ₹27.38 crore on Intel Corporation for abusing its dominant position in the Indian market for boxed desktop microprocessors. The Commission held that Intel’s India-specific warranty policy unfairly restricted warranty services to products purchased only from authorised distributors within India, thereby disadvantaging parallel importers and Indian consumers.
The order was passed by a coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag.
The proceedings arose from an information filed by Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based IT trading firm engaged in importing and selling Intel microprocessors through parallel channels. The case, titled In Re Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Intel Corporation (Case No. 05 of 2019), was initiated under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. The informant alleged that Intel had introduced discriminatory warranty conditions in India that harmed traders dealing in genuine processors sourced from overseas authorised distributors.
The Commission noted that prior to 25 April 2016, Intel offered a worldwide manufacturer’s warranty on its boxed microprocessors. However, the company subsequently amended its warranty service policy for India, restricting local warranty support to products purchased from authorised Indian distributors. As a result, even genuine processors bought from Intel’s authorised distributors abroad were denied warranty service within India and customers were redirected to the country of purchase for claiming warranty.
After examining the material on record, the Commission defined the relevant market as the “market for Boxed Microprocessors for Desktop PCs in India” It found that Intel held a dominant position in this market during the period 2016 to 2021. The finding was based on Intel’s consistently high market share in terms of both value and volume, the limited competitive constraint posed by AMD, the company’s significant size and resources, and the high entry barriers associated with capital intensity, intellectual property protection and research and development requirements.
On merits, the Commission concluded that Intel’s India-specific warranty service policy amounted to abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act. It held that denying warranty service in India solely on the basis of the place of purchase imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i). The Commission observed that Intel’s products are technologically identical irrespective of the country of sale, and that the company had adequate mechanisms, such as product serial and batch number verification tools, to determine authenticity. The denial of warranty was therefore not linked to counterfeit concerns but was based exclusively on the location of purchase.
The Commission further found that the impugned policy restricted lawful parallel imports and reduced price competition in the Indian market, thereby limiting the market and denying market access to parallel importers in contravention of Sections 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c). It noted that consumers typically prefer products with local warranty support, and the policy effectively shielded authorised Indian distributors from competitive pressure arising from lower-priced imports.
Intel had relied on earlier decisions such as Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal and Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung to justify its conduct. However, the Commission distinguished those precedents, observing that they involved materially different factual circumstances and did not concern denial of warranty on genuine products purchased from authorised distributors abroad.
During the course of proceedings, Intel informed the Commission that it had withdrawn the India-specific warranty policy with effect from 1 April 2024. The Commission treated this as a mitigating factor while determining the quantum of penalty. After considering Intel’s average relevant turnover from sale of boxed microprocessors in India for the preceding three financial years, the Commission imposed a penalty at the rate of eight percent of such turnover, amounting to ₹27.38 crore.
Intel has been directed to deposit the penalty within 60 days and to widely publicise the withdrawal of the impugned warranty policy. The Commission also deleted Intel Technology India Private Limited from the array of opposite parties after finding that it was not engaged in the manufacture or sale of microprocessors in India.
Case Reference : Case No. 05 of 2019
