After the raids: The uneasy truths behind Indian advertising’s perfect façade

On March 18, CCI officials raided the offices of India’s biggest media agencies—GroupM, IPG Mediabrands, Publicis, Dentsu, and Madison—alongside top industry bodies, including the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA). The allegation: price collusion and anti-competitive arrangements that may have distorted how ad rates and media inventories were negotiated, especially around marquee events like the IPL.

Since then, the silence has been deafening. Queries sent to the CEOs of the top agencies yielded no responses. AAAI, too, has not issued a comment. But a confidential advisory from the association to its members reveals the tension. The note —seen by Mint—instructed agencies to avoid any form of coordination: no price sharing, no informal chats, and definitely no WhatsApp groups.

The mood across the industry is somewhere between damage- control and denial. “There’s discomfort, not panic. But everyone knows this is serious,” said a senior executive at a media agency. “You don’t see the CCI walk in with court orders and forensic teams unless they’re convinced something’s off.”

Fallout could reshape Indian advertising

Behind the scenes, the forensic arm of the CCI—the office of the Director General—is poring over emails, contracts, rebate structures, and pricing templates. If a prima facie case is established, the fallout could be severe. Agencies could face penalties of up to 10% of their average turnover over the last three years. Senior executives may be held personally liable. Civil suits from clients who feel misled about pricing or discounts could follow.

But beyond the legal implications lies a much larger reckoning.

For years, the Indian ad industry has tiptoed around the uncomfortable truth that media buying is dominated by a handful of global networks—none bigger than GroupM, which alone is estimated to command 45–50% of the media market. That scale has brought operational efficiency, but also opacity. Rate cards are often not what they seem. Rebates are poorly understood by clients. And much of the actual pricing power sits with intermediaries rather than the brands spending the money.

“It’s difficult for buyer behaviour alone to remedy extensively collusive supply-side conduct. That’s exactly why competition law exists,” said Ambar Bhushan, Partner at Bharucha & Partners. “A cartel, simply put, is an agreement between competitors that prevents prices from falling—and that hurts consumers.”

Bhushan calls this a first-of-its-kind moment in Indian advertising. “The law has always been there. What’s different now is its application. This probe may be the first real test of how competition law can reshape the business of advertising,” he added.

Monopoly concerns

Raj Nayak, veteran media executive and founder of House of Cheers a media consulting firm and a SaaS platform, believes the investigation has laid bare a structure that has long favoured the biggest players at the cost of diversity and fairness. “Three to four media buying groups control almost 80% of the business, which is not healthy for the industry,” he said. “This concentration puts smaller agencies at a significant disadvantage and limits innovation. If the CCI’s intervention leads to meaningful reform, it could shift how media is priced and negotiated in India.”

Nayak also noted how monopoly-driven volume deals can undermine client interests. “Agency-wide volume discounts often don’t benefit large advertisers proportionally. In some cases, they may end up subsidising smaller clients without even knowing it.”

The timing of the raids—just before IPL—has only sharpened focus. JioHotstar, now part of the Disney-Reliance media behemoth, reportedly priced digital ad slots at ₹8.5 lakh for 10 seconds. With the CCI’s glare on how these rates were brokered, advertisers have begun quietly auditing deals, rechecking contracts and rebate disclosures.

Some insiders believe the probe is also about market power. “It’s not just about law, it’s about control,” said a veteran media planner. “Broadcasters want more direct access to advertisers. Agencies want to protect their cut. And the advertisers? They just want clarity on where their money’s going.”

In Raj Nayak’s view, this moment isn’t likely to accelerate automation, as some may expect. “It’s doubtful this will lead to more programmatic media buying, especially in TV and print. In fact, advertisers may seek more traditional, hands-on approaches—where relationships and direct negotiations ensure clearer accountability,” he said. “This is an opportunity to reassess ethical standards, not just adopt tech for the sake of it.”

On whether this was IPL-specific or a broader structural issue, Nayak was clear: “This was bound to surface. IPL’s visibility may have amplified the scrutiny, but the underlying dynamics were always there. Media owners and smaller agencies have been losing leverage for years.”

Reckoning for opaque practices

And that’s the heart of it. This isn’t just a story about potential collusion. It’s about trust. In a business built on creativity, relationships, and perception, the trust deficit is growing.

Everyone — brands, agencies, platforms — wants accountability, but no one wants to go first.

As one senior executive at a large network agency bluntly put it, “Let’s not pretend this came out of nowhere. For years, we’ve operated in a grey zone—rebates, opaque pricing, backroom deals. Everyone knew, but no one challenged it because the system worked for those at the top. Now that someone’s finally lifting the hood, we’re all scrambling.”

From the other end of the spectrum, smaller and independent agencies are watching with a mix of vindication and cautious optimism. “This industry has long been a closed club. If you’re not a holding company or don’t control ₹500 crore in media spend, you’re invisible,” said the founder of a boutique agency. “We’ve been priced out of pitches, strong-armed on margins, and made to feel irrelevant. If this investigation opens up the field even a little, it’s good for creativity and great for clients.”

For now, the IPL continues. Ads are airing. Celebrities are endorsing. But the ecosystem that makes all this possible has been cracked open—and it’s unclear what will crawl out. Whether this becomes a transformative moment or just another crisis absorbed and forgotten depends on what the regulator finds—and how the industry chooses to respond.

Because this time, the problem isn’t just that the emperor has no clothes. It’s that everyone’s known it for years—and chosen to look the other way.