Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Intel Corporation (Case No. 05 of 2019) was decided by the Competition Commission of India on 12 February 2026 by a Bench comprising Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag (Members). The case concerned Intel’s India-specific warranty policy, introduced on 25 April 2016, under which warranty support in India was denied for genuine boxed microprocessors purchased from authorised overseas distributors and extended only to products sold by authorised Indian distributors. The Commission defined the relevant market as boxed microprocessors for desktop PCs in India and found Intel to be dominant due to its high market share, technological dependence on x86 architecture, and significant entry barriers. Holding that differential warranty treatment of identical genuine products amounted to an unfair and discriminatory condition, denial of market access to parallel importers, and foreclosure of downstream distribution markets, the CCI found Intel to have abused its dominant position in violation of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002, and ruled that subsequent withdrawal of the policy did not absolve liability for past anti-competitive conduct.

Legal Issue

Whether a dominant manufacturer’s refusal to provide local warranty support for genuine products purchased abroad amounts to an unfair and discriminatory condition. Whether such refusal forecloses parallel importers and restricts downstream distribution markets. Whether insulation of authorised distributors from international price competition constitutes abuse under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Brief Facts

Informant was a lawful parallel importer of Intel boxed microprocessors procured from authorised overseas distributors at lower global prices. Intel historically honoured worldwide warranty in India but changed policy on 25.04.2016 to an India-specific warranty service regime. Under the new policy, only products purchased from authorised Indian distributors were eligible for warranty service in India. Genuine imported processors could be serviced only in the country of purchase, making resale commercially unattractive due to time and cost barriers.Informant alleged the policy forced customers toward authorised distributors and eliminated price competition created by imports.

Authority’s Reasoning

Relevant market determined as boxed microprocessors for desktop PCs in India based on product characteristics, consumer preference, and functional substitutability.Intel held dominant position owing to high market share, technological dependence on x86 architecture, entry barriers, and absence of effective competitors except AMD. Warranty restriction treated identical genuine goods differently solely on geographical purchase location, thereby imposing an unfair and discriminatory condition on buyers. Absence of domestic warranty significantly reduced commercial viability of imported processors, effectively excluding independent resellers and parallel importers from competing in the downstream distribution channel. Policy shielded authorised distributors from international price arbitrage and weakened price competition, leading to higher consumer prices and reduced choice. Intel’s justification of preventing counterfeit products rejected since authenticity could be verified technologically and the restriction applied even to genuine authorised products purchased abroad.Commission held that less restrictive alternatives existed, making the policy disproportionate and exclusionary.

Decision

Intel found to have abused its dominant position under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act. Conduct amounted to imposition of discriminatory conditions, denial of market access to parallel importers, and restriction of competition in distribution markets. Appropriate corrective directions and remedies imposed by the Commission.

Subsequent Development

Intel withdrew the India-specific warranty policy effective 01.04.2024.

Commission held withdrawal does not absolve liability for past anti-competitive conduct and proceeded with adjudication.

Access the Official Judgement here

Case Title

Matrix Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Intel Corporation

Case Number

Case No. 05 of 2019

Authority

Competition Commission of India

Coram

Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson)
Mr. Anil Agrawal (Member)
Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member)
Mr. Deepak Anurag (Member)

Date of Decision

12 February 2026