Flipkart Sellers Sue Indian Antitrust Watchdog Over Investigation

Three online sellers operating on Walmart-owned Flipkart have filed lawsuits against the Indian antitrust watchdog over an investigation that found Flipkart, Amazon, and some of their sellers violated competition laws, according to court filings seen by Reuters.

The filings follow antitrust investigations that concluded in August, which found that Amazon and Flipkart, along with some of their sellers and smartphone brands, breached local competition laws by favoring select online sellers and prioritizing certain listings, as reported by Reuters.

Flipkart, one of India's largest e-commerce players and a rival to Amazon, is at the center of these legal challenges. In an attempt to halt the critical proceedings, the three sellers on the platform submitted petitions to the High Court of Karnataka to "set aside" the investigation report and suspend the process of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

These lawsuits from sellers on Amazon and Flipkart could potentially delay the investigation process, which began in 2020 after brick-and-mortar retailers from the Confederation of All India Traders lodged complaints with the watchdog. Both Amazon and Flipkart deny any wrongdoing.

The three Flipkart sellers - CIGFIL Retail, Wishery Online, and Xonique Ventures - argue in their lawsuits that they were asked to provide data to assist officials during the investigation but were later named as accused, which they claim is a violation of due process, as shown in court papers.

"The alleged investigation ... is arbitrary, opaque, unfair," the sellers argued in three separate court filings, which are expected to be heard next week. Flipkart and the CCI did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reuters was unable to reach the three sellers, whose filings are being reported for the first time.

Last week, a former Amazon seller also sued the CCI and obtained an interim injunction to halt the investigation. The court filing, seen by Reuters, argued that the CCI did not provide notice before making the seller an accused in the case.