INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Amazon said it would review the order "carefully and then decide on the next steps".The court dismissed pleas on Friday by Amazon.com Inc
and Walmart's Flipkart to quash an antitrust investigation into the business practices of the United States firms, dealing them a blow in
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) announced its investigation in January 2020 after a trader group's complaint accused the firms
of promoting some "preferred sellers" and hurting business for smaller sellers.The companies denied wrongdoing and a court put a hold on the
Dinesh Kumar of the high court in the southern state of Karnataka said he was dismissing the petitions by Amazon and Flipkart, and refused
them any further relief.Abir Roy, a lawyer for the trader group, told Reuters the judge's decision effectively paved the way to restart
the investigation, which has been on hold for more than a year
However, the companies are likely to appeal against the verdict.Amazon said it would review the order "carefully and then decide on the next
Flipkart did not immediately respond
When the competition panel ordered its investigation, it listed four alleged anti-competitive practices.These were exclusive launches of
mobile phones by the e-commerce firms, promoting preferred sellers on their websites, deep discounting practices and prioritising some
seller listings over others.The investigation is the latest setback for the firms, which have also battled tougher foreign investment rules,
and faced accusations for years from brick-and-mortar retailers about circumventing Indian law by creating complex business structures.In
sellers prosper on its platform in India, giving them discounted fees and helping one cut special deals with big tech firms.As the
received against Amazon.In response, the company, which has said it "does not give preferential treatment to any seller", told the court
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/amazon-tells-indian-court-reuters-story-is-no-reason-resume-antitrust-probe-2021-04-15 it disagreed with
the Reuters report, which should not be considered evidence
