CCI Closes Complaint Against Eros Over AI-Altered Re-Release of Dhanush Starrer 'Raanjhanaa'

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur along with Members Sweta Kakkad, Deepak Anurag in an order dated January 5, found that the allegations failed to establish any contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, which deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.

“Hence, the Commission is of the view that the issues raised in the instant matter do not fall under the ambit of the Act and remedy(ies), if any, may lie before an appropriate forum/elsewhere. Accordingly, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act can be made out against the OP in the instant matter.”, the CCI said.

The matter arose from an information by two advocates, who alleged that Eros International had unlawfully altered the ending of Raanjhanaa using artificial intelligence and re-released the film in Tamil Nadu in August 2025. The informants claimed that the alteration, coupled with proposed distribution on OTT platforms, amounted to abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements that distorted competition in the motion picture industry.

They also sought interim relief to restrain further screening and distribution of the altered version, contending that the conduct adversely affected consumer choice and competition, particularly in the absence of regulatory safeguards governing AI-based alterations of copyrighted works.

The CCI noted that the dispute was essentially contractual and private in nature. It held that the informants had failed to produce evidence demonstrating dominance, collusion, or any nexus between the alleged conduct and an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the market. It observed:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and allegations levelled therein, the Commission observes that such issues appear to be in the nature of dispute, if any, between concerned/relevant parties which ipso facto does not require intervention of the Commission.”

The Commission noted that merely raising concerns around new technology or intellectual property exploitation does not automatically attract competition law scrutiny. In the absence of substantiated competition harm, the CCI concluded that the issues raised did not fall within the ambit of the law.

Accordingly, the requests for interim relief were rejected with the Commission clarifying that any remedy lay before an appropriate forum.

Case Title: Adv Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv Kunwar Arpit Paliwal and Eros International Media Ltd

Case Number: Case No. 28 of 2025