The Competition Tribunal said it was unreasonable and unjust to grant interim relief in favour of eMedia in its battle with MultiChoice, which removed a number of eMedia channels from its DStv platform in April.

The tribunal on Monday released reasons for its order on May 31, dismissing the application for interim relief by eMedia Investments against MultiChoice.  

eMedia had sought an order to interdict MultiChoice from removing the E.tv Extra, eToonz, eMovies and eMovies Extra channels from the bouquets of channels on the DStv platform.

eMedia sought the interim relief for a period of six months or pending the final determination of its complaint lodged with the Competition Commission in March 2022 against MultiChoice, whichever occurred first.  

In the alternative, eMedia sought an order directing MultiChoice to carry its channels on the DStv platform on the same terms and conditions carried by MultiChoice before April 1 2022.

In reasons released on Monday, the tribunal said interim relief is a procedure to temporarily protect and maintain competition while the commission is investigating.

It said granting interim relief is decided on the basis of evidence before the tribunal without the benefit of a full investigation and oral evidence.

The tribunal said the interim relief — without the benefit of a full investigation and implications of the requirement, under the Electronic Communications Act on subscription television services licensees to carry public broadcasting services licensees, such as the SABC, on the state of competitiveness in the market as whole — may unduly alter the state of competition in the market in favour of eMedia over other competitors in the market.

The tribunal said this would not be consistent with its role to prevent damage to competition in the market as a whole, rather than damage to a competitor.  

MultiChoice had since 2017 acquired, marketed and distributed the discontinued channels on DStv in terms of an agreement.

According to eMedia, MultiChoice had refused to renew the agreement.

eMedia submitted, among others, that MultiChoice’s refusal to carry the discontinued channels amounted to abuse of dominance.

MultiChoice argued the decision not to renew the channels was for commercial reasons.

It said eMedia had a number of options — such as OpenView — through which to distribute its content.  

The tribunal found, on the evidence before it, that eMedia had not established at first glance that there was abuse of dominance by MultiChoice.

The tribunal was not persuaded, on the evidence before it, that the non-renewal of the discontinued channels had an anticompetitive effect resulting in foreclosure or harm to consumer welfare.

It said this was, among other reasons, because consumers would still be able to view the discontinued channels on other platforms, such as eMedia’s own OpenView platform.

TimesLIVE