CCI raids 101: What has transpired till now and what does it mean for media buying?

The usually slick, jargon-filled world of media buying in India found itself rudely interrupted recently, not by a disruptive new app or a viral campaign, but by the decidedly less glamorous arrival of officials from the Competition Commission of India (CCI). In mid-March 2025, the competition watchdog unleashed what can only be described as a coordinated symphony of "dawn raids," sending tremors through the very foundations of the country's advertising establishment. Offices of the veritable who's who of global media agency networks—WPP's GroupM, Interpublic Group (IPG), Publicis Groupe, Dentsu, and reportedly others like Omnicom, Havas, and Madison—along with key industry bodies, were suddenly playing host to investigators seeking evidence of anti-competitive practices.

For marketers and advertisers, accustomed to negotiating complex deals through these very agencies, the news landed like a rogue algorithm disrupting a meticulously planned campaign. It wasn't just a procedural hiccup; it was a potential paradigm shift, raising uncomfortable questions about transparency, pricing, and the fundamental mechanics of how billions in advertising rupees are spent.

How did we get here?

Like any good drama, the CCI's investigation didn't materialise out of thin air. The seeds appear to have been sown through a combination of formal complaints and, intriguingly, the CCI's own leniency programme. This programme, a strategic tool in the watchdog's arsenal, offers reduced penalties—potentially even a full waiver for the first applicant—to companies that blow the whistle on cartel behaviour by providing crucial evidence.

Reports suggest that Dentsu may have been one of the first through the door, allegedly approaching the CCI under this leniency scheme as far back as February 2024. The purported evidence? Information concerning potentially anti-competitive pricing arrangements and discount structures allegedly dictated or influenced by agreements between industry bodies, specifically the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF).

Simultaneously, the CCI was seemingly looking into complaints regarding specific guidelines and advisories issued by industry associations, including the AAAI, IBDF, and even the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA)—the very body representing the advertisers footing the bills. An August 2024 order reportedly empowered the CCI's Director General to probe these matters, focusing on whether these industry-level agreements inadvertently or deliberately stifled competition. The CCI, in seeking court approval for the searches, noted that the conduct, guidelines, and advisories of these bodies could significantly impact other players in the advertising supply chain. It appeared the watchdog suspected that efforts to secure members' commercial interests might have strayed into anti-competitive territory.

The plot thickened further with allegations that a few dominant agencies, having consolidated large advertiser accounts, might have secured preferential (and potentially market-distorting) low rates from broadcasters for TV inventory in exchange for steering significant ad investments their way. It paints a picture of a complex web of relationships where the lines between competitive negotiation and potentially collusive arrangements became blurred.

The dawn raids

Around March 18th and 19th, 2025, the investigation moved from paper trails to physical searches. CCI teams descended upon offices in major hubs like Mumbai, Delhi, and Gurugram. The targets were clear: the nerve centres of media planning and buying operations for the largest agency networks, alongside the headquarters of the influential IBDF (representing major broadcasters like the Reliance-Disney JV, Sony, and Zee), the AAAI, and the ISA.

The timing was particularly piquant, falling just before the Indian Premier League (IPL) season—a period that traditionally sees an advertising blitzkrieg across platforms, commanding colossal budgets. Conducting raids during this critical planning phase sent a clear message: the CCI was serious, and no time was off-limits. The objective was explicit: seize documents, clone hard drives, scrutinize emails, and gather any evidence pointing towards collusion, price-fixing, or bid-rigging. For the agencies involved, it was an unwelcome spotlight, forcing them onto the back foot just as the high-stakes IPL game was about to begin.

Decoding the allegations: What's under the microscope?

The CCI's investigation appears multi-pronged, attacking potential anti-competitive behaviour from several angles, primarily focusing on violations of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits agreements that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition.

• Price fixing and cartelisation: This is the headline act. The core suspicion is that major media agencies, possibly in concert with broadcasters or platforms (represented by IBDF), colluded to manipulate advertising rates and discount structures. This could involve setting agreed-upon price floors, standardising opaque rebate mechanisms, or coordinating bids to maintain artificially high prices, ensuring clients couldn't benefit from genuine price competition between agencies or media owners. The focus seems particularly sharp on high-value inventory like prime-time television slots and major sporting events (hello, IPL!).
  

• Bid rigging: Explicitly forbidden under Section 3(3)(d) of the Act, bid-rigging involves competitors colluding during a tender or bidding process to pre-determine the winner or manipulate the outcome. In the advertising context, this could mean agencies agreeing amongst themselves who would win a particular client pitch, submitting cover bids, or agreeing on minimum commission levels or fee structures presented to potential clients, thereby eliminating genuine competition for advertiser accounts. While some legal experts debate if the current allegations strictly fit the classic 'bid rigging' definition seen in procurement tenders, any agreement reducing competition during the pitch process falls under the CCI's scrutiny.
  

• Anti-competitive industry guidelines: The investigation is also scrutinising the role of industry bodies. Specific points of concern reportedly include:
  

• ISA's Model Agency Agreement (August 2023): Allegations suggest this model agreement might have limited the scope of negotiation between advertisers and agencies, potentially impacting agency revenues and advertiser flexibility.

• AAAI's guidelines on Media Agency Remuneration (August 2023): These guidelines apparently set limits for minimum commissions and incentives for traditional and digital advertising, potentially preventing agencies from competing freely on price/remuneration models.

• IBDF's advisory on Media Account Transitions (September 2023): This advisory allegedly directed that agencies pitching for an account should not unilaterally offer discounts on existing channel rates. It even included an indemnity clause, making the new agency liable for losses incurred by broadcasters due to such discounts—a move seemingly designed to prevent aggressive price competition during account transitions. The CCI also allegedly noted a joint AAAI-IBDF sub-committee potentially coordinating actions against certain clients.

• Transparency and opaque structures: While perhaps not a direct violation in itself, the pervasive lack of transparency in media buying forms the murky backdrop to these allegations. Complex rebate structures, Agency Volume Benefits (AVBs)—discounts agencies receive from media owners for bulk buying, which may or may not be passed back to clients—and the intricate workings of programmatic digital advertising create an environment where anti-competitive practices could potentially thrive undetected. The investigation's recent expansion to probe the role of Big Tech (Google, Meta) in digital ad pricing and deals highlights this growing concern, particularly around undisclosed programmatic fees where advertisers fear they might be overcharged.
  

Implications across the marketing ecosystem

This investigation is far more than an internal affair for the agencies involved. Its shockwaves are reaching every corner of the advertising and marketing world, prompting soul-searching and strategic recalculations.

• For advertisers (the clients): This is a moment of reckoning. For years, whispers about opaque practices and the true value derived from media agencies have circulated in marketing corridors.
  

• Transparency demands: The CCI probe will undoubtedly embolden advertisers to demand far greater transparency in pricing, discounts, rebates, AVBs, and programmatic fees. Expect more rigorous contract negotiations, demands for detailed reporting, and potentially more frequent audits. The era of the "black box" media buy may be facing its sternest challenge yet.

• Pricing and ROI pressure: If collusion is proven, it implies advertisers may have been overpaying for media. The investigation could lead to pressure for fairer pricing and potentially more competitive rates, although establishing baseline "fairness" in a service industry remains complex.

• Strategic shifts: Some advertisers might reconsider their agency relationships, explore bringing media planning/buying partially or fully in-house, or look towards smaller, more transparent independent agencies. Trust, once eroded, is hard to rebuild. The CCI is also expected to issue notices to top advertisers, drawing them directly into the investigation to provide details of their transactions.

• Impact on pitches: The scrutiny on guidelines related to remuneration and discounts during transitions could alter how pitches are conducted, potentially leading to more aggressive price competition—if agencies feel less constrained by implicit or explicit industry agreements.

• For media agencies (the intermediaries): The stakes are incredibly high.
  

• Financial penalties: If found guilty of cartelisation, agencies face hefty penalties—up to 10% of their average annual turnover for the preceding three years, or three times their annual profits during the period of collusion, whichever is higher. Individuals involved can also face significant fines.

• Reputational damage: Beyond fines, the damage to reputation and client trust could be substantial and long-lasting. Agencies thrive on being trusted advisors; allegations of collusion strike at the heart of that relationship.

• Operational overhaul: The probe could force agencies to fundamentally change their operating models, particularly around pricing, remuneration, and disclosure. This might squeeze margins initially but could lead to more sustainable, value-based relationships long-term.

• Competitive dynamics: The leniency scheme introduces a 'prisoner's dilemma' dynamic. While potentially exposing wrongdoing, it can also sow distrust among competitors. Furthermore, if larger agencies are penalised or forced to change practices, it might create openings for smaller or independent agencies, although they too operate within the same ecosystem pressures.

• For media owners and broadcasters (the platforms): While not the primary targets (except via the IBDF probe), media owners are intrinsically linked. If agencies were coordinating discounts or rates, broadcasters were part of that equation. The investigation might lead to advertisers seeking more direct deals or demanding greater clarity on agency vs. media owner pricing. The probe's expansion into Big Tech further complicates this space.
  

• For the industry at large: This could be a watershed moment. It forces uncomfortable conversations about ethics, fair play, and the sustainability of current media trading practices in India's $18.5 billion (and growing) ad market. It may accelerate the push towards industry-wide standards for transparency, potentially through enhanced self-regulation or even calls for more direct regulatory oversight, as some experts have suggested.
  

The long road ahead

It's crucial to remember that these are currently allegations under investigation. The CCI process is thorough and typically lengthy, often taking 1-2 years or more. It involves analysing the seized evidence, potentially issuing further notices (including to advertisers and Big Tech), holding hearings, and allowing the accused parties to present their defence before reaching a final order.

The outcome remains uncertain. The CCI might find insufficient evidence, exonerating the agencies and bodies involved. Or, it could find evidence of anti-competitive practices, leading to significant penalties and orders mandating changes in behaviour. The role of the leniency applicant (allegedly Dentsu) will also be critical in how the case unfolds.

The CCI's investigation into India's media agencies is more than just a regulatory probe; it's a stark examination of the often-opaque engine room of the advertising industry. It has thrown the proverbial cat among the pigeons, forcing agencies, advertisers, broadcasters, and platforms to confront difficult questions about how business is conducted.

For marketers, while potentially disruptive in the short term, the long-term outcome could be beneficial if it ushers in an era of greater transparency, fairer pricing, and more accountable partnerships. The investigation serves as a potent reminder that competitive markets require constant vigilance, both from regulators and from the advertisers whose budgets fuel the entire ecosystem. 

News