Competition Commission Closes InVideo AI Dispute: Allegations of Exploitative Practices Found to Be Non-Competitive Matter

Competition Commission Closes InVideo AI Dispute: Allegations of Exploitative Practices Found to Be Non-Competitive Matter​

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a significant information file concerning disputes leveled against Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the AI video generation platform InVideo AI. The ruling, issued by the three-member Commission bench, determined that while the informant detailed several instances of poor service and unilateral actions by the Opposite Party (OP), these issues do not constitute a prima facie violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The case centered on allegations made by Dinesh Kumar Dadsena against the technology company regarding customer experience, subscription management, and alleged market abuse related to its AI-powered service offerings. The final order released on June 4, 2026, detailed the Commission’s observations and concluded that remedies for the grievance lie in an appropriate forum outside of competition law jurisdiction.

Details of Grievances Against InVideo AI​

The Information filed by Mr. Dadsena outlined a series of grievances stemming from his use of InVideo AI, which operates as a cloud-based digital video generation and translation platform. The complainant highlighted issues beginning with a server malfunction encountered on September 15, 2025.

According to the complaint, after reporting the core functionality defect, the company's response time was extremely slow, taking approximately 8 to 12 hours per support reply. The situation escalated when the OP committed compensation but only credited 75 minutes instead of the promised 100 AI minutes for losses incurred in September and October.

The complainant further alleged that despite ongoing issues with service functionality, Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. unilaterally cancelled his valid paid subscription. He stated that 145 unused AI minutes remained in the account at the time of cancellation. Although a partial refund of Rs. 5000/- was later processed, the lost usage time and workflow disruption persisted.

Allegations of Market Abuse by Tech Giant​

Mr. Dadsena framed the dispute within the market for "AI-powered, cloud-based video creation, editing, and translation platforms available to consumers and digital creators in India." He alleged that the OP holds a dominant position due to its brand visibility and network effects in this specialized segment.

The informant contended that the OP engaged in several unfair practices. These included unilaterally cancelling the subscription, which was deemed arbitrary and exploitative. The complainant also stated that the company made misleading remarks by asserting that he was 'the only consumer in India facing this issue,' thus abusing its dominant position as per Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the Act.

The file submission detailed how the OP's actions—including service denial, selective compensation, and evasive communication—resulted in direct economic loss and significant disruption to his professional workflow. The informant noted that he had exhausted pre-litigation remedies through the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) before approaching the CCI.

CCI Declares No Competition Concern Found​

After a detailed review of the submitted information, the Commission reached its finding in an order passed on April 22, 2026. The body noted that while the grievances were serious, they pertain to a dispute between the concerned parties rather than a matter raising competition concerns under Section 4 of the Act.

The Commissioners observed that the alleged conduct of the OP—such as restricting service provision or denying market access—did not meet the threshold required for intervention by the Competition Commission. The findings concluded that any remedy sought by the complainant may lie before an appropriate forum elsewhere, such as consumer protection agencies.

Accordingly, the Commission formally stated that no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act was made out against Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. and closed the Information file forthwith in terms of Section 26(2) of the Act.