eMedia Investments Proprietary Limited v Multichoice Proprietary Limited and The Competition Commission

eMedia Investments brought an application before the Competition Appeal Court following a ruling by the Tribunal. The matter concerned the removal of certain television channels (eToonz, eMovies, eMovies Extra, and E.tv Extra 3) from MultiChoice's DStv platform bouquet. These channels had previously formed part of the DStv platform prior to the Tribunal's ruling. eMedia had initiated a complaint before the Competition Commission regarding this matter.

• Whether an interdict should be granted to prevent MultiChoice from removing eMedia's channels from the DStv platform pending the final determination of eMedia's complaint
• What time period should apply for the interim interdictory relief
• Whether the relief should extend to all affected channels including E.tv Extra 3

The court granted an amended interdict preventing MultiChoice from removing four channels (eToonz, eMovies, eMovies Extra, and E.tv Extra 3) from the DStv platform bouquet pending the conclusion of the hearing into eMedia's complaint or for six months from 1 August 2022, whichever occurred first. The amendment took effect retroactively from 1 August 2022.

Where a complaint has been initiated before the Competition Commission regarding the removal of content from a platform, the Competition Appeal Court has jurisdiction to grant interim interdictory relief to preserve the status quo by preventing the removal of channels pending final determination of the complaint, subject to appropriate time limitations to ensure the matter proceeds to finality.

The court's decision to make the amendment retroactive to the date of the original order (1 August 2022) suggests a concern to ensure continuity of protection and avoid any gap in the interim relief that might have arisen from the period between the original order and the amended order. The specific inclusion of E.tv Extra 3 as item 2.4 in the amendment indicates this channel may not have been clearly covered in the original order and required express clarification.

This case is significant in South African competition law as it demonstrates the willingness of the Competition Appeal Court to grant interim relief to preserve the status quo in broadcasting and media distribution disputes pending final determination. It illustrates the court's approach to balancing commercial interests in the competitive pay-television market and protecting competitors from potentially irreversible harm during the competition adjudication process. The case also highlights the regulatory oversight of conduct by dominant players in the broadcasting sector.