The Indian paint industry is worth around $9.5 billion and is caught up in one of its biggest battles in decades. At the heart of this corporate struggle is a David and Goliath story, complete with all the ingredients of a classic business thriller: market domination, ruthless competition, legal complaints, and accusations flying around like brushstrokes on a canvas. The latest twist in this drama is that Aditya Birla Group’s paint unit has filed an antitrust complaint against market leader in Indian paints, Asian Paints, accusing the company of using its leadership role to throttle competition.

But is this a situation of a dominant firm struggling to hold on to its dominance via unfair practices, or is it merely a new company complaining when it is compelled to compete with a big, established one? The answer, as we are about to discover, is more nuanced than either story suggests.

Asian Paints has dominated India’s paint market for over eight decades. It was a modest Mumbai-based partnership that was founded in 1942 and has become a behemoth with an enormous market share of between 50% to 60% of the organized paint market, as estimated by industry analysts. To put this into perspective, envision that one company dominates over half of all paint sold in a nation with a population of 1.4 billion. That is the level of market dominance exercised by Asian Paints.

The company’s financials are equally impressive. In the 2022-23 financial year, Asian Paints recorded net sales of $4.20 billion, more than half of India’s architectural coatings market. It has 27 paint manufacturing facilities spread across 15 countries, customers in over 60 countries, and over 12,000 employees worldwide on its payroll. It’s not a paint firm; it’s a paint empire.

But empires tend to give rise to challengers, and Asian Paints is finding that to be the undisputed monarch in this competitive world of today takes more than brand name and tradition. The company’s latest set of financial figures present a picture of mounting pressure. Asian Paints posted a bigger-than-expected 45% decline in fourth-quarter profit, and its stock has fallen by 25% in 2024 alone. The stock price, which had touched a 52-week high of Rs 3,422 in December 2023, had fallen to a 52-week low of Rs 2,507 by November 2024.

Aditya Birla Group launched Birla Opus Paints in February 2024 with a very aggressive investment of $1.18 billion, one of the most aggressive forays into the Indian paint market in years. This was no modest foray into the unknown; this was a splashy move meant to cause a lot of disruption.

The Birla strategy has revolutionized the game. Within a year of its launch, Birla Opus had obtained close to 7% of the market as of March 2025, as per information from Elara Capital. For perspective, observe how most new paint industry companies struggle to achieve even 1-2% market share within their first two years. Birla Opus didn’t just join the market; it surprised it.

The company’s growth strategy is as aggressive as a war effort. As per Reuters, Birla Opus constructed factories near Asian Paints factories, recruited Asian Paints managers, offered enormous discounts to paint dealers, and targeted 6,000 townships by the end of the financial year. The company supported this aggressive growth with 50,000 dealers and developed direct selling models that circumvented traditional channels of distribution.

Rakshit Hargave, the MD of Birla Opus, has also come out in the open regarding the company’s strategy. According to him, they intend to achieve sales of Rs 10,000 crore in a three-year timeframe. The marketing strategy of the company is equally aggressive, aiming at what they term as “five different fronts” to revolutionize the decorative paints business through innovative marketing concepts.

The unfair competition complaint filed by Birla Opus against Asian Paints is a huge milestone in an already challenging competition. The complaint was submitted to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and alleges that Asian Paints has been abusing its dominant position with a number of practices that are unfair and intended to prevent Birla Opus from acquiring more market share.

Individuals familiar with the complaint describe the allegations as severe and complicated. Birla Opus alleges that Asian Paints coerced retail dealers not to distribute Birla Opus products, threatened to cut credit to dealers selling substitute products, and threatened that stock would be in short supply if Birla Opus advertisements were placed prominently in dealer stores. If substantiated, the allegations would obviously violate India’s competition laws.

The complaint alleges that Asian Paints employed its market dominance to stifle new firms, attempting to maintain its dominant position not through fair competition but through unfair practices. This kind of activity, where the dominant firm employs its dominance to drive out competitors, is precisely what antitrust law seeks to avoid.

But the timing and nature of the charges do pose serious questions of motivation and strategy. Is this a legitimate complaint about anti-competitive behavior, or is it a strategic move by an entrant that wishes to employ regulatory assistance to level a playing field that market forces themselves might not be able to level?

The Historical Context Paints Similar Colour.

It is not the first time that Asian Paints has been accused of unfair trade practices. In 2022, the CCI closed a similar complaint by JSW Paints accusing Asian Paints of exploiting its market dominance. The competition regulator did not observe any breach of competition rules in the case, dismissing the grievances and acquitting Asian Paints of any misconduct.

The JSW Paints case is also highly applicable since it was for the similar allegations for which Birla Opus is filing the present case. JSW Paints, supported by the JSW Group, had accused Asian Paints of indulging in anti-competitive behavior to sustain its market share. However, after conducting a due inquiry, the CCI held that the facts did not warrant the charge of abuse of dominant position. This latest example is something that raises suspicions about the present complaint.

Are we seeing a trend where new players in the paint business complain to the regulators when they are not able to compete in business? Or has Asian Paints grown more aggressive because competition has risen?

The system of selling paints provides us with useful insights into how competition functions. Paint retailers, being the middleman between manufacturers and consumers, are the focus of this business war. Their experiences provide us with a close-up look at how competition is actually unfolding in the market.

Sunny Rahman, owner of a paint vendor in Kolkata, offers a good example of how the market has shifted. In his view, in 2023 Asian Paints was accounting for 70% of his annual paint sales, but it dropped to as little as 30% in 2024 due to his choice to take advantage of lower prices of Birla Opus. This drastic shift illustrates how effective Birla’s strategy is and how it can affect Asian Paints’ regular dealer relationships.

But the dealer side also suggests the extent of the competition. Dealers generally report that they get superior margins and incentives from new players like Birla Opus, and therefore they would be first-choice partners. The issue then is: when Asian Paints retaliates by tightening its dealer terms or lamenting about dealers selling rival products, is this anti-competitive or just a natural business reaction to competitive pressure?

In the paint business, dealer relations always hinged upon elaborate arrangements. These arrangements like credit terms, market support, volume incentives, and exclusive or semi-exclusive arrangements are involved. The existing relations are under threat if a new company comes in with better terms.

Understand how the market share works so that you can figure out if Asian Paints is being unfair or just holding its rightful place in the market. Asian Paints holds a share of about 50-60% of the organized paint market, as per different studies. That is a strong position, but strong doesn’t necessarily mean unfair.

More interesting is how this market share has shifted. Industry statistics indicate that Asian Paints’ market share has remained relatively consistent across the decades, even rising from around 39% in 2020 to well over 50% in 2024. But the entry of Birla Opus has begun to make its presence felt in this dominance, with Asian Paints losing some of its share since February 2024.

The broader competition includes key players such as Berger Paints (slightly over 18% market share), Kansai Nerolac Paints, and some domestic players. This indicates that although Asian Paints enjoys a monopoly, there is competition. Birla Opus’s success in gaining 7% market share in a single year indicates that new market players are able to enter the market, even that of a market leader.

One of the most interesting aspects of this competition is the amount of money involved. Birla’s $1.18 billion investment represents 40% of the industry’s overall capacity, company reports suggest. This is not competition; this is a capacity shift of epic proportions.

The impact of introducing this capacity is huge. By significantly expanding industry supply, Birla has initiated a price war that benefits the consumers but tests the earnings of all firms in the industry. This type of disruption resulting from increased capacity tends to occur when a new firm with plenty of capital wishes to gain a larger market share quickly.

Asian Paints has also had to deal with this capacity constraint while maintaining its existing operations and dealer network. The recent decline in the company’s profit indicates that this competition is actually impacting its bottom line.

The CCI is in a tough spot when deciding on the complaint. The CCI must weigh a couple of things in mind: ensuring fair competition, stopping the abuse of dominant positions, and not obstructing genuine competitive practices.

The 2022 rejection of comparable allegations by JSW Paints by the commission is a precedent, but every case must be determined separately. The CCI must determine whether what Asian Paints is doing is an abuse of dominance or a reasonable competitive response to a new market entrant.

The Indian laws do not state that it is unlawful to be the market leader. But failing to use the position to eliminate competition is not permitted. The issue is defining what constitutes fair competition and unfair trade practices, particularly in a market where strong relationships between dealers and exclusive arrangements have been the norm.

The corporate soap opera has implications for consumers and innovation in the paint business. Competition tends to benefit consumers in the form of reduced prices, better products, and better quality services. The entry of Birla Opus has already demonstrated these advantages, with prices down, say dealers, and consumers having greater choices of new products.

In brief, more competition can lead to better technology and new products. Both Asian Paints and Birla Opus are investing in new formulas, eco-friendly products, and better modes of manufacturing. This competition helps the whole industry and the consumers of their products.

Indian paint business has traditionally been accused of being not so innovative and having high profits. The existing competition may bring in changes that can render the business more vibrant and customer-focused.

The decision arrived at on this antitrust complaint will have a significant effect on the Indian paint sector and potentially other industries facing the same kind of competition. If the CCI finds Birla’s grievances to be true, it might lead to drastic changes in the way dominant companies do business in the Indian market. Or if the complaint is dismissed, it might encourage other established players to launch more aggressive attacks on new entrants.

Asian Paints has a very tough challenge. The company must compete very effectively against new players who have enormous funds, without doing anything that is perceived as unfair. This may entail making fundamental changes about the way it operates its business, its pricing, and the way it deals with dealers.

For Birla Opus, the antitrust complaint is both a clever decision and a likely diversion. Although assistance from regulators may soften some competition, the company needs to thrive on its own merits rather than regulatory favor.

The Verdict: Monopoly or Fear?

Is Asian Paints attempting to monopolize the market, or is Birla simply anxious?

The reality, as in so many complex business scenarios, lies somewhere in between.

Asian Paints appears to be doing more to defend its position rather than to monopolize the market. The company has a new and well-capitalized challenger. It may be doing some things that can be described as unfair, but as a whole, it appears that the company is doing things to defend its position in the market and not to monopolize the market.

Birla Opus is not playing it safe; it is doing everything in its ability to acquire a formidable competitor. The antitrust grievance seems to be a part of a larger strategy that involves reducing costs, increasing capacity, hiring additional dealers, and now putting pressure on regulators.

The actual beneficiaries of this war are Indian consumers. They are already reaping the rewards in the form of increased competition, reduced prices, and improved products. The paint sector, which is controlled by a handful of players earning good returns, has to become competitive and customer-focused now.

While this business drama unfolds, one thing is certain: the Indian paint market will never again be the same. Whether through government action or natural market forces, the era of having no competition is over. The question now becomes whether this will occur through equitable competition or if it requires government intervention to give everyone an equal playing field.

Ultimately, the 2024-25 paint wars are more than a company war. They are a manifestation of the competing ambitions of incumbent market leaders to preserve their positions and new entrants to upend the industry status quos. Whatever the outcome of this war is, it will not only determine the players that sell paint to Indian consumers, but also how competition is waged in one of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies.