CCI dismisses InVideo AI complaint, directs consumer to other forums

It matters to citizens as it clarifies that the CCI views this specific dispute as a private matter between parties rather than a competition law violation, directing the complainant to other forums for remedy.

Who it concerns: The order concerns Dinesh Kumar Dadsena (Informant), Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party), and the Competition Commission of India (Regulator).

What the Commission found or ordered

• The CCI found no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 against the Opposite Party.
• The Commission observed that the issues raised appear to be in the nature of a dispute between the concerned parties and do not require intervention by the Commission.
• The Commission stated that the issues do not raise any competition concern and that remedies, if any, may lie before an appropriate forum elsewhere.
• The Information was closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
• The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant.

Also in the document

• The Informant alleged that the Opposite Party unilaterally cancelled a paid subscription and denied access to 145 unused AI minutes.
• The Informant claimed the Opposite Party made misleading statements that he was the only consumer in India facing the issue to discourage escalation to consumer authorities.
• The Informant stated that prior to approaching the CCI, they had exhausted administrative remedies, including escalation through the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), which advised approaching a Consumer Commission on 03.12.2025.
• The CCI considered the information in a meeting held on 22.04.2026.