Tag: South African Competition Commission

Changing Channels: Competition Commission Tunes Into MultiChoice and Altech’s Alleged 2014 Market-Sharing Agreement

Posted on by Editor

By Tyla-Lee Coertzen and Matthew Freer

On 15 April 2026, the South African Competition Commission (the “Commission”) referred a complaint against MultiChoice South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“MultiChoice”) and Altech UEC South Africa (Pty) Ltd (“Altech”) to the Competition Tribunal for prosecution.

The Commission’s complaint centres around allegations of breaches of section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (the “Act”) regarding a market-division agreement entered into between Multichoice and Altech. Specifically, the Commission’s complaint alleges that that, in February 2014, the firms agreed that Altech, a manufacturer of Set Top Boxes (“STBs”), would refrain from entering the pay-television (“pay-TV”) market as a competitor to MultiChoice.

At the time, Altech was a key supplier of STBs to MultiChoice. The Commission argues that this arrangement effectively resulted in allocation of the pay-TV market, where MultiChoice remained a dominant provider of subscription television services, while Altech remained confined to the hardware manufacturing space, despite having the theoretical capability to become an effective competitor.

The referral was announced on 4 May 2026, by way of a media statement released by the Commission issued a media statement announcing the referral of a collusion complaint against pay-TV giant MultiChoice and electronics manufacturer Altech. The referral marks a significant escalation in the Commission’s enforcement of cartel conduct within the broadcasting and technology sectors.

Section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Act prescribes as follows:

  • An agreement between, or concerted practice by, firms, or a decision by an association of firms, is prohibited if it is between parties in a horizontal relationship and if-
  • it involves any of the following restrictive horizontal practices:
  • dividing markets by allocating customers, suppliers, territories, or specific types of goods or services;

The allegations are founded on a potential per se prohibition, meaning that the Commission is not required to prove that the agreement had actual anti-competitive effects, the existence of the agreement itself is sufficient to establish a violation of the Act.

If the Tribunal ultimately finds against the firms, they face administrative penalties of up to 10% of their respective annual turnovers.

To understand the competition concerns arising from the Commission’s complaint, one must examine the relationship between the two entities during the 2014-2015 period. At the time of the alleged agreement, Altech was a unit of the JSE-listed Altron group (Business Day, 2026). Beyond manufacturing decoders, Altech launched a product known as the “Node,” an interactive smart home and video-on-demand device that utilised satellite connectivity. The Commission appears to view the “Node” as a potential competitive threat to MultiChoice’s DStv service (Business Day, 2026). The agreement in question, according to the regulator, ensured that Altech would not transition from a supplier of hardware to a rival provider of pay-TV services, thereby protecting MultiChoice’s market dominance.

In response to the media statement and the referral, MultiChoice issued a formal statement to the press denying any contravention of the law. The company confirmed that the agreement in question was a “historical supply agreement” that has since come to an end in 2015 (Business Day, 2026).

Multichoice asserts that the arrangement was a standard commercial supply agreement rather than a cartel arrangement. MultiChoice also noted that it is “considering the referral and will respond fully within the prescribed timelines,” indicating that it will challenge the Commission’s interpretation of the facts in due course during the subsequent proceedings before the Tribunal. As of the publication of the Commission’s statement, Altech, which was sold by Altron to Skyblu Technologies, a Skyworth affiliate, in 2019, had not issued a public response.

John Oxenham, Partner at Primerio notes: “The referral of MultiChoice and Altech illustrates the Commission’s continued vigilance regarding market allocation in the digital broadcasting sector. While the Commission asserts that the 2014 agreement served to push a potential competitor out of the market, MultiChoice argues that the historical agreement was benign. The case analysis will likely hinge on whether the Tribunal views Altech as a potential competitor in the pay-TV market at the time of the agreement.”

FUEL AT THE BOILING POINT: Competition Commission Issues Price Gouging Warning

Posted on by Editor

By Megan Armstrong and Matthew Freer

South African consumers have received warning to expect oil price hikes from 1 April 2026, at a time when households are already price-constrained and cost-conscious. Naturally, as oil prices increase, consumers can reasonably expect these hikes to be passed down through corresponding price increases on the respective goods and services. The question to business is how much of an increase is reasonably permitted within the ambit of competition law, and what should the timing of such an increase be?

The Commission’s Warning

In response to the anticipated price volatility, the Competition Commission of South Africa (the “Commission”) has issued a media statement warning of heightened risks of price gouging across several sectors. The Commission stated the following:

“The risk is prevalent for unregulated fuels such as diesel retail prices and jet fuel; oil-based products such as nitrogen-based fertilisers and plastics; fuel-intensive services such as air, land and sea transport and logistics; and all other products and services that rely on these inputs, particularly food products and delivery services.”

Additionally, the Commission set out clear rules for businesses navigating the looming price increase:

  • “Businesses may not increase prices in anticipation of future fuel cost increases; they may only increase prices once they experience actual fuel cost increases.
  • Businesses that experience fuel cost increases may only increase their prices in proportion to the actual fuel cost increases they experience.
  • In effect, these two conditions mean that product or service margins after the surge in fuel prices should be no higher than the margins prior to the fuel price increase.
  • Furthermore, once fuel costs decline, product or service prices should decline immediately.”

What is Price Gouging?

Price gouging is the act of charging customers unreasonably high prices for goods or services typically in response to a crisis, natural disaster or demand shock where consumers have few alternatives and the product is a necessity. This behaviour sits at the intersection between business ethics and consumer protection in considering exploitation of a demand spike to maximise profits.

South Africa’s legal approach to this issue does not use the term “price gouging” directly in its primary statutes, rather the framework is built upon two distinct pillars. The first pillar is found in the Competition Act 89 of 1998. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act prohibits a dominant firm from charging an “excessive price to the detriment of consumers or customers”, a definition refined by the Amendment Act of 2018 to mean “higher than a competitive price” and where such a difference is “unreasonable”, targeting firms with substantial market power which abuse their dominance. The second pillar is enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. Sections 40 and 48 of this Act prohibit suppliers from engaging in unconscionable conduct and from supplying goods or services “at a price that is unfair, unreasonable or unjust”. This provision has a broader application, as it does not require a firm to be dominant. It applies to any supplier who takes unfair advantage of a consumer.

Considering the existing legislative framework on price gouging behaviour in South Africa, price gouging is then defined as the practice of increasing prices on essential goods or services during a declared disaster or crisis to a level that:

1.         Does not correspond to increased costs of providing the good or service; or

2.         Exceeds pre-crisis profit margins without justification; and

3.         Takes unfair advantage of those consumers with limited alternatives as a result of the emergency situation.

Lessons from COVID-19

The most significant development in South Africa with regards to price gouging came in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 19 March 2020, the Minister of Trade and Industry, Ebrahim Patel, published the Consumer and Customer Protection and National Disaster Management Regulations and Directions (the “Regulations“). They were designed to prevent an escalation of the disaster and to protect consumers from exploitative commercial practices during this period of vulnerability.

The Regulations formalised a cost-based test for determining excessive or unfair pricing, that a material price increase of an identified good or service will be considered indicative of excessive pricing if:

  • it “does not correspond to or is not equivalent to the increase in the cost of providing that good or service“; or
  • it “increases the net margin or mark-up on that good or service above the average margin or mark-up for that good or service in the three month period prior to 1 March 2020“.

Furthermore, the Commission’s 2021 Guide for Business Compliance with Price Gouging Regulations, emphasised that during a disaster, price increases must be strictly proportionate to cost increases, and businesses must not exploit temporary demand surges to inflate profit margins.

The Commission’s willingness to act was demonstrated early in the pandemic in the Babelegi case, where a firm was found liable for excessive pricing after increasing mask prices by over 1 000% while its own supply costs remained unchanged.

In essence, South Africa’s legal framework defines price gouging not by the final price itself but by seller behaviour, where an unjustified cost increase representing abuse of a temporary situation in which consumers are a captive market and desperate for essential goods and services. A framework established during COVID-19 now guides current pricing conduct and sheds some light on how the Commission would evaluate seller behaviour in relation to demand shocks arising from emergencies, natural disasters, or market disruptions.

What Businesses Should Do

Business should be mindful of not increasing prices in anticipation of the impact of the oil price increase and engage in corresponding price increases once these price increases have a clear and quantifiable impact on internal pricing mechanisms.

The wider public does have recourse available to contact the Commission, should it appear that a business is engaging in price gouging behaviour, or has responded too erratically to the market disruptions caused by the sudden spike in the oil price. The Commission has stated the following: “Given the heightened risk of price gouging during this period of oil price volatility, the Commission calls on the public and businesses to report instances where they believe price gouging is occurring so that the Commission can investigate.”

Ultimately, the lesson from COVID-19 remains unchanged in that price increases have to be justified by evident supply cost increases and not by opportunity. As the Commission has made clear, anticipation pricing and margin expansion will not be tolerated.