Skip to content
Search:

For other notifications, click here.

bell 0

Abuse of Dominant Position by SISTIC.com Pte Ltd

Reference

CCS/600/008/07

Case Title

Abuse of a Dominant Position by SISTIC.com Pte Ltd

Case Type

Investigation

Decision Date

4 June 2010

Summary of Infringement Decision

The Competition Commission of Singapore (“CCS”) issued an Infringement Decision (“ID”) against SISTIC.com Pte Ltd (“SISTIC”) for abusing its dominant position. Specifically, CCS decided that SISTIC has contravened section 47 of the Competition Act (“the Act”), via a series of exclusive agreements (collectively referred to as the “Exclusive Agreements”). These agreements are:

• The Application Service and Ticketing Agreement (“ASTA”) between SISTIC and The Esplanade Co. Ltd (“TECL”) which contains explicit restrictions requiring that all events held at the Esplanade venues use SISTIC as the sole ticketing service provider;

• The Agreement for Ticketing Services (“ATS”) between SISTIC and Singapore Sports Council (“SSC”) which contains explicit restrictions requiring that all events held at the Singapore Indoor Stadium (“SIS”) use SISTIC as the sole ticketing service provider; and

• 17 other agreements that contain explicit restrictions requiring the event promoters concerned to use SISTIC as the sole ticketing service provider for all their events.

CCS finds that SISTIC is the dominant ticketing service provider in Singapore with a persistent market share of [85-95]%, and that the restrictions under the Exclusive Agreements are harmful to competition by restricting the choices of venue operators, event promoters and ticket buyers. Symptoms of such harmful effects have been observed in the market, such as an increase in SISTIC’s booking fee for ticket buyers in 2008.

CCS has directed SISTIC to modify the Exclusive Agreements with immediate effect, to remove any clause(s) that require SISTIC’s contractual partners to use SISTIC exclusively.

In addition, SISTIC has been levied with a financial penalty of $989,000 for infringing section 47 of the Act.

Further information on CCS’ investigation, analysis of the case and the basis for the 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 and Media Release and Competition Appeal Board's Decision.


Updated Date

Last Updated on 13 August 2018