Competition Law in Pakistan: Abuse of Dominance, Deceptive Marketing, and Mergers

Competition law in Pakistan is enforced far more actively than many businesses assume. The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) has taken on national airlines, telecom operators, electricity distribution companies, and even a local electric wire manufacturer, and the reported decisions give a genuinely practical picture of where the lines are drawn.

At Global Law Company, we advise businesses on competition compliance, merger notifications, and defending CCP investigations and Appellate Tribunal appeals. For businesses navigating related corporate obligations, see our corporate lawyer in Pakistan guide.

1. What the Competition Act 2010 Actually Prohibits

The Competition Act 2010 centres on four things: abuse of a dominant position (section 3), prohibited agreements between undertakings that restrict competition (section 4), deceptive marketing practices (section 10), and mergers that could substantially lessen competition (sections 11 to 13). As the Commission itself put it in a 2022 order (2022 CLD 266), its mandate is to provide for free competition in all spheres of commercial and economic activity, enhance economic efficiency, and protect consumers and market players from anti-competitive behaviour, whether that takes the form of abuse of dominance, deceptive marketing, or harmful mergers.

2. Abuse of Dominant Position in Practice

"Dominance" under the Act isn't about being the biggest company in an industry in the abstract, it's about market power within a specific relevant market, and the cases show how narrowly that market can be defined. In Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Competition Commission of Pakistan (2026 CLD 658), the Competition Appellate Tribunal upheld a suo motu action against PIA for charging exorbitant fares for Hajj flights, holding that sections 3 and 4 of the Act exist to stop undertakings from manipulating prices in a way that restricts or reduces competition, regardless of whether the underlying decision had some government involvement.

Dominance disputes also arise in much smaller, more local markets. In (2023 CLD 429, Competition Commission of Pakistan), internet service providers complained that an electricity distribution company was abusing its dominant position over "right of way for aerial cables across electricity poles" by imposing unfair conditions, free advertising slots and free internet for its own offices, on top of ordinary rent. The Commission found these conditions onerous, not freely negotiated, and an added barrier to competition, and treated the company's later refusal to provide right of way at all as a refusal to deal under section 3(3)(h). A similar pattern appeared in a housing society case (2022 CLD 31), where a society's exclusive control over granting NOCs to cable/internet providers was found to give it a 100% market share it then used to favour its own subsidiary.

3. Deceptive Marketing Practices

Section 10 of the Act catches marketing conduct that misleads consumers, even where no false statement is technically made. In Rana Electric Store v. Competition Commission of Pakistan (2023 CLD 1556), the Commission fined an electric cable manufacturer Rs. 500,000 for inserting cash and cash coupons of varying denominations into wire bundles without disclosing the scheme, a promotional tactic found to be a deceptive marketing practice under sections 2, 3, 10, 30, 37 and 42 of the Act. On appeal, the Tribunal weighed the manufacturer's market share against the size of the penalty, underlining that proportionality, not just the existence of a violation, matters at the sanction stage.

4. Merger Control and Pre-Clearance

Certain mergers and acquisitions above prescribed thresholds require CCP clearance before completion, under the Competition (Merger Control) Regulations 2016. This is not a rubber-stamp process. In the Commission's review of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited's proposed 100% acquisition of Telenor Pakistan, Telenor LDI Communications, and Orion Towers (2026 CLD 113), the Commission examined how the merger would affect the entry of new Mobile Network Operators versus Mobile Virtual Network Operators, and required proportionate remedies to preserve MVNO market access post-merger, rather than approving the transaction outright. Businesses planning any material acquisition in a concentrated sector should build CCP clearance into the transaction timeline from day one, not treat it as a formality to tidy up afterward.

5. Enforcement, Penalties, and Appeals

The Commission can act on its own motion (suo motu) or on complaint, issue show-cause notices, and impose financial penalties, as seen throughout the cases above. Decisions of the Commission can be appealed to the Competition Appellate Tribunal, and from there through the ordinary court hierarchy, but as the PIA and Rana Electric Store cases show, tribunals have generally been willing to uphold the Commission's core findings while still scrutinising the proportionality of penalties imposed.

Talk to Us Before the Commission Comes Knocking

Whether you need a merger notification assessed, a show-cause notice answered, or a competitor's conduct investigated, our team can guide you through Competition Commission proceedings and appeals. Contact Global Law Company at 0333 4125951 or visit our chambers at 3rd Floor, Ahmad and Shafi Plaza, 13 Fane Rd, Lahore, 54000.