Publicis takes CCI back to Delhi HC over legal identity in advertising cartel probe

TLG India Private Limited, the principal legal entity operating Publicis Groupe's advertising business in India, has once again approached the Delhi High Court in its ongoing legal battle with the Competition Commission of India (CCI), challenging the regulator's refusal to recognize it as an "opposite party" in the antitrust investigation into alleged cartelisation in the advertising industry.

The fresh writ petition comes months after the Delhi High Court had declined to interfere in the matter, directing the company to first approach the CCI on its grievance regarding the identity of the entity under investigation.

e4m had first reported in March that Publicis Groupe was preparing to challenge the High Court's earlier order and explore further legal remedies after its initial writ petition was disposed of. 

Read the earlier report here.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, hearing the matter on July 22, issued notice to the CCI and accepted the regulator's request for time to obtain instructions regarding the addition of TLG India as an "opposite party" in the proceedings. The court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit or written submissions within one week and listed the matter for hearing on July 31, 2026.

A continuation of the legal battle

The latest petition is a continuation of a dispute that began after the CCI initiated a suo motu investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices in the advertising industry through its order dated August 9, 2024, naming "Publicis Groupe" as one of the opposite parties.

In its earlier petition before the Delhi High Court, TLG India had argued that "Publicis Groupe" is merely a global brand name and not a juridical entity, either in India or France, and therefore could not legally be proceeded against. The company had maintained that while the investigation named the brand, the CCI's Director General was issuing summons to TLG India and its employees, effectively treating it as the entity under investigation without formally recognizing it as a party.

Appearing for TLG India in the earlier proceedings, senior advocate Ritin Rai had argued that investigations under the Competition Act must be directed against a legally identifiable "enterprise" and not a brand name. He had sought quashing of the summons issued in the name of Publicis Groupe, inspection of records relied upon by the CCI and substitution of TLG India as the proper party to the proceedings.

The CCI, represented by senior advocate Jayant Mehta, had opposed the plea, arguing that the petition was premature as no notice had been issued directly to TLG India. The regulator had also contended that the Competition Act permits investigation against "persons", a term broad enough to include entities forming part of a corporate group.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav had subsequently declined to entertain the petition, observing that TLG India had not yet suffered any legal injury and was free to seek appropriate remedies before the Commission itself. The High Court had left all rights and contentions open.

Fresh challenge after CCI rejects substitution plea

Pursuant to the High Court's observations, TLG India filed a Rectification and/or Substitution Application dated March 19, 2026, requesting the CCI to replace the name "Publicis Groupe" with "TLG India Private Limited" in the ongoing proceedings.

However, the Commission rejected the application through its April 22, 2026 order, prompting the company to return to the Delhi High Court.

In the present petition, TLG India has sought to set aside the Commission's April 22 order and direct the CCI to rectify its original investigation order dated August 9, 2024 by substituting TLG India in place of "Publicis Groupe" as the opposite party.

The company has also sought quashing of the summons dated March 9, 2026 and the Director General's notice dated July 9, 2025.

Reliefs sought before the High Court

Apart from challenging the CCI's orders, TLG India has sought several consequential directions from the High Court.

It has requested that the Director General be restrained from using any information, data or material seized from its premises until it is formally recognized as an opposite party in the investigation.

The petition also seeks directions granting TLG India the same procedural and substantive rights available to other opposite parties in the suo motu proceedings, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Further, the company has asked the court to direct the CCI to maintain consistency in the geographical scope of the investigation across all entities under probe and restrain the regulator from taking coercive action, including issuance of summons or notices to TLG India or its employees, until it is formally recognized as an opposite party.

Court issues notice

During the hearing, the Delhi High Court issued notice on the petition, which was accepted by counsel appearing for the CCI.

Senior counsel for the Commission sought time to obtain instructions regarding the addition of TLG India as an opposite party in the proceedings initiated by the regulator.

The court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit or short written submissions within one week, with an advance copy to the petitioner's counsel, and listed the matter for July 31, 2026.

The latest proceedings indicate that the dispute has now shifted from the maintainability of TLG India's earlier writ petition to a direct challenge against the CCI's refusal to substitute the correct legal entity in its investigation, a question that could have significant implications for the conduct of the ongoing antitrust probe into India's advertising industry.