Excessive Pricing Cases in South Africa: Lessons for Businesses

Many businesses assume excessive pricing is only a risk for monopolies charging high prices over a long period. That is a dangerous misunderstanding.

In South Africa, excessive pricing cases have shown that pricing conduct can come under scrutiny far more quickly, especially where a firm has market power, consumers are vulnerable or the product is essential. The Competition Tribunal and Competition Appeal Court have both dealt with excessive pricing cases arising from the Covid-19 period, while Media24 remains one of the leading long-running excessive pricing matters in South African competition law.

For businesses, the risk is not only a fine. Excessive pricing allegations can lead to complaints, investigations, public scrutiny and lasting reputational damage. Barter McKellar advises clients on pricing risk, dominance issues and urgent competition law strategy before pricing decisions turn into enforcement problems.

What is excessive pricing?

Under South African competition law, excessive pricing is an abuse-of-dominance issue. In practical terms, the question is whether a dominant firm has charged a price that is unfairly high to the detriment of consumers or customers. The recent Competition Tribunal cases also show that, in crisis conditions, the authorities may look closely at sharp price increases that are not supported by corresponding cost increases.

That means businesses should not assume that a price is safe simply because there is demand for the product or because customers were willing to pay it.

Why excessive pricing matters more than businesses think

South African enforcement shows that excessive pricing is not a theoretical rule. It has been used in fast-moving cases involving essential products during the pandemic and in longer-form dominance disputes. The Competition Tribunal fined Dis-Chem R1.2 million over face-mask pricing during Covid-19, fined Tsutsumani about R3.44 million over emergency mask supply to SAPS and fined BlueCollar and its partner R3.55 million over hand sanitiser supplied to SAPS.

The lesson is straightforward: if the authorities believe a firm used market power to exploit urgent demand, the matter can escalate quickly.

Key excessive pricing cases businesses should know

1. Media24

Media24 is one of the most important excessive pricing matters in South African competition law. The Constitutional Court’s 2019 Media24 decision concerned pricing behaviour in the Welkom newspaper market, where the original complaint arose from Gold Net News and related to Media24’s conduct in that market. A further Competition Appeal Court judgment involving Media24 was issued in 2025, showing that Media24 continues to feature in current appellate competition litigation.

Lesson for businesses: excessive pricing risk is not limited to emergency pricing or short-term opportunism. It can also arise in sustained market settings where dominance and pricing strategy are challenged over time.

2. Babelegi

Babelegi became the leading early Covid-era excessive pricing case. The Competition Appeal Court said that in a crisis situation such as the Covid-19 pandemic, one needs to use a different conceptual framework from what would ordinarily be used in an excessive-pricing case.

Lesson for businesses: a crisis does not create pricing freedom. It can do the opposite. In emergency conditions, sharp price increases may be judged against a far harsher legal and factual backdrop.

3. Dis-Chem

The Competition Tribunal found that Dis-Chem had materially increased surgical mask prices during Covid-19 without significant corresponding cost increases and imposed a R1.2 million penalty. The Competition Tribunal also said these increases would seriously affect vulnerable and poorer consumers and described the conduct as exploitative and reprehensible in the context of the pandemic.

Lesson for businesses: if your margins increase materially while your costs do not, especially for essential items, you may struggle to justify the pricing later. Internal explanations created after the fact are often not enough.

4. Tsutsumani

The Competition Tribunal found Tsutsumani guilty of excessive pricing in relation to urgent mask supply to SAPS and imposed an administrative penalty of R3,441,689.10. The Tribunal found that Tsutsumani enjoyed market power and was dominant in the market for emergency procurement of masks by SAPS from qualifying suppliers able to meet the urgent request for quotations.

Lesson for businesses: dominance can be assessed narrowly in urgent procurement contexts. A business does not need to be dominant across the whole economy to face risk if it has market power in a particular transaction setting.

5. BlueCollar

The Competition Tribunal found BlueCollar and its partner guilty of excessive pricing for urgent hand sanitiser supply to SAPS during Covid-19 and imposed a joint penalty of R3.55 million. The Tribunal noted that BlueCollar acted as a trader or reseller and that the Commission argued it had applied a 120% mark-up and earned a gross margin of more than 50%.

Lesson for businesses: being a reseller or intermediary does not shield you. If you are simply trading product and adding a steep mark-up in stressed market conditions, that can become a central part of the case against you.

What do these cases tell businesses?

• Pricing spikes without cost support are dangerous

The most obvious lesson is that sudden price increases unsupported by corresponding cost increases are high risk, particularly where the product is essential or demand is driven by crisis conditions. That theme appears clearly in Dis-Chem and in the Covid-era case law more generally.

• Market power can be temporary or context-specific

Businesses often assume dominance only applies to entrenched giants. The SAPS procurement cases show that market power may be assessed in a narrower emergency-supply market where only certain suppliers can meet urgent requirements.

• Essential goods attract more scrutiny

Masks and hand sanitiser were treated as critical products in the pandemic context. The Tribunal repeatedly linked excessive pricing analysis to consumer vulnerability and the importance of the goods.

• Public harm matters

The Tribunal’s reasoning in Dis-Chem emphasised exclusionary effects on poorer consumers and the broader public-interest harm of steep price increases during a health crisis.

Your documents will matter later

These cases are also a warning about internal pricing records. If there is no clear and contemporaneous justification for a price increase, a business may later look opportunistic rather than commercially rational. That is an inference drawn from how the Tribunal focused on margins, mark-ups and cost movements in the reported cases.

Common mistakes businesses make

Businesses frequently:

• assume high demand justifies any price increase

• fail to document genuine cost drivers

• ignore the risk of narrow market-power findings

• treat emergency procurement as a commercial free-for-all

• believe only manufacturers, not resellers, face risk

• wait until the Commission contacts them before getting advice

Those mistakes become expensive once a complaint has been filed or pricing data has been requested.

How to reduce excessive pricing risk

A sensible business should:

• test whether it may have market power in the relevant context

• document cost increases before implementing major price changes

• scrutinise pricing of essential or high-demand products

• review margins where market conditions are abnormal

• obtain legal advice before applying aggressive mark-ups in stressed markets

The earlier this is done, the better. Once the authorities form the view that a firm exploited consumers or customers, the case becomes far harder to contain.

When should you speak to a competition lawyer?

You should seek advice immediately if:

• you operate in a market where you may be dominant

• you are raising prices sharply in response to unusual demand

• your costs have not increased in line with your prices

• you supply essential goods or urgent procurement customers

• you have received a complaint, information request or Commission contact

At that stage, delay usually makes the problem worse.

How Barter McKellar can assist

Barter McKellar advises on:

• excessive pricing risk assessments

• dominance and market-power analysis

• urgent review of pricing strategies

• responses to Competition Commission complaints and investigations

• internal risk reviews where pricing decisions may be challenged

Our approach is practical and commercial. We help clients assess pricing risk before it turns into a public enforcement issue.

Get advice before pricing decisions become enforcement cases

Excessive pricing cases in South Africa show that enforcement can move quickly where firms appear to exploit market power, emergency demand or vulnerable consumers.

By the time the Commission is investigating, the pricing decision has already been made, the documents already exist and the business is already exposed.

Speak to a competition law specialist at Barter McKellar. Request a confidential review.