CCI Closes Complaint Against InVideo AI, Finds Subscription Cancellation Dispute Lacks Competition Concern

The Competition Commission of India closed a Section 4 complaint against AI video platform InVideo AI, holding that a subscriber's grievance over cancelled paid minutes is a private dispute, not a competition matter.

The Competition Commission of India, by an order dated 4 June 2026, closed a complaint filed by Chhattisgarh-based digital creator Dinesh Kumar Dadsena against Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd., the Indian entity operating the AI video platform InVideo AI. The Commission, comprising Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag, found no prima facie case of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Acting under Section 26(2) of the Act, the Commission held that the grievances raised — centring on a cancelled subscription, withheld AI minutes, and delayed customer support — amounted to a private dispute between the parties and did not raise any competition concern warranting the Commission's intervention.

The Subscriber's Complaint

Dadsena, a paid subscriber of InVideo AI, filed the Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act. His complaint arose from a sequence of events beginning 15 September 2025, when he encountered a server malfunction in the platform's automated translation feature, which he described as a core component for multilingual content creation.

He reported the malfunction immediately and made multiple follow-ups. According to the Information, the platform's support team responded with delays of 8 to 12 hours per reply and provided what the Informant characterised as evasive answers. On 19 September 2025, the opposite party acknowledged the malfunction and promised 100 AI minutes as compensation — 50 for September and 50 for October. Only 75 minutes were credited; the remaining 25 were denied.

During a follow-up on 17 October 2025 regarding the missing 25 minutes, the platform's support told Dadsena he was the only consumer in India facing the issue. Shortly after, the platform unilaterally cancelled his subscription, despite what he said were 145 unused paid AI minutes remaining in his account. A partial refund of Rs. 5,000 was later issued, but the lost AI minutes and disrupted projects were not restored.

Before approaching the Commission, Dadsena escalated the matter through the National Consumer Helpline of the Government of India. The NCH, after the opposite party's continued non-cooperation, formally advised him on 3 December 2025 to approach the appropriate Consumer Commission.

How the Informant Framed the Competition Case

Dadsena defined the relevant market as “the market for AI-powered, cloud-based video creation, editing, and translation platforms available to consumers and digital creators in India.” He argued this market is distinct from traditional non-AI video editing software, offline tools, and general-purpose AI models, because platforms like InVideo AI integrate AI-driven content generation, automated translation, cloud-based rendering, and subscription-based access into a single offering.

He further contended that InVideo AI holds dominance in this market by virtue of brand visibility, network effects, switching barriers, and user dependence on its proprietary cloud system. On that basis, he alleged multiple contraventions of Section 4 of the Act.

The specific allegations were:

• Unilateral cancellation of a valid paid subscription without consent, and denial of access to 145 unused paid AI minutes, amounting to unfair and discriminatory conditions under Section 4(2)(a)(i).
• Disabling the translation feature, delaying support responses, and cancelling the subscription while the service was actively in use, constituting unlawful limitation of services under Section 4(2)(b)(i).
• Denying market access to the Informant by cancelling the subscription and blocking tools essential for digital creators, in contravention of Section 4(2)(c).
• Making a misleading statement that the Informant was the only consumer in India facing the issue, thereby discouraging him from approaching consumer authorities, in violation of Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e).

The reliefs sought included a direction to the Director General to investigate under Section 26(1), imposition of penalty, a cease-and-desist direction, and directions for transparent and non-discriminatory service practices for all Indian users.

The Commission's Assessment

The Commission considered the Information at its ordinary meeting held on 22 April 2026 and reserved its order. After perusing the Information and attached documents, it took a narrow view of the dispute.

The Commission observed that the issues raised appeared to be in the nature of a dispute between the concerned parties, which by itself does not require the Commission's intervention. It held that the allegations did not raise any competition concern and that any remedy available to the Informant lay before an appropriate forum elsewhere.

The Commission did not engage with the Informant's proposed relevant market definition or his claim of dominance. It did not examine whether InVideo AI held a dominant position in any market. The order rested entirely on the threshold finding that the conduct complained of — subscription cancellation, withheld AI minutes, delayed support, and a partial refund — was a bilateral grievance between a subscriber and a service provider, not a matter engaging Section 4 of the Act.

The Commission's reasoning reflects a consistent approach: Section 4 is directed at market-level harm arising from the exercise of dominance, not at individual consumer grievances that may be addressed through consumer protection or contractual remedies. The NCH's own advice to Dadsena to approach a Consumer Commission pointed in the same direction.

Order

The Commission found no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Information was closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant. The order was signed by Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, and Mr. Deepak Anurag at New Delhi on 4 June 2026.