Price fixing of rates of modelling services in Singapore by Modelling Agencies

Case Title:

Price-Fixing in Modelling Services

Decision Date:

23 November 2011

Case Summary:

The Competition Commission of Singapore (“CCS”) issued today an Infringement Decision against 11 modelling agencies in Singapore for breaching the Competition Act (“the Act”). The agencies were found to have infringed section 34 of the Act, which prohibits, amongst other things, price-fixing activities.

The 11 modelling agencies are:

a)   Ave Management Pte Ltd

b)   Bees Work Casting Pte Ltd

c)   Catworkz International Pte Ltd

d)   Diva Models (S) Pte Ltd

e)   Electra Management

f)    Impact Models Studio

g)   Linsan Models

h)   Looque Models Singapore Pte Ltd

i)    Mannequin Studio Pte Ltd

j)    Phantom Management Pte Ltd

k)   Quest Model Management

The modelling agencies engaged in anti-competitive conduct by agreeing to fix the rates of modelling services in Singapore. This agreement started from 2005, and continued until 17 July 2009 after CCS conducted inspections on the modelling agencies’ premises.

Investigations by CCS revealed that one of the main objectives of the AMIP was to collectively raise the rates for modelling services charged by the agencies. In early 2005, the AMIP was established, and the modelling agencies continued to meet, discuss and agree upon the prices for modelling services, under the front of the AMIP, until CCS conducted inspections in July 2009.

In this case, CCS found that the agencies had fixed prices on a wide variety of modelling services, including editorials, advertorials, fashion shows and media loading usage. Customers who were impacted included publishers, photographers, show choreographers, show organizers and fashion labels.

Further information on the investigation, analysis of the case and the basis of calculation of the financial penalty imposed on the infringing parties are set out in the Infringement Decision (ID) and the document is available here.

Useful links:

Infringement Decision, 

Media Release,

Notices of Appeal, Competition Appeal Board's Decision on

Appeal No. 2 of 2012 and

Appeal No. 3of 2012 and

Media Release on CAB's Decision