It all started with two bottles of energy drinks that looked uncannily alike. In 2018, PepsiCo Pakistan, maker of the popular red Sting energy drink, cried foul that a newcomer called Storm was copying its look to dupe consumers. The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) opened an inquiry into Mezan Beverages, the producer of Storm, for “deceptive marketing” and copycat packaging.
This is when Pakistan’s regulators’ real powers started to get questioned. Mezan dragged the regulator into a protracted legal battle. Over the next five years, the makers of Storm found ways to kick the can down the road, obtaining court stay orders in 2018 and 2021 that halted the CCP’s inquiry.
By filing constitutional petitions and challenging the CCP’s jurisdiction, the company effectively stalled the case for years, much to the frustration of its rival and the regulators.
When this was happening, Profit covered the events of this regulatory battle with the detail a regulatory failure demands. Seven years after the case was filed and two years after our story, the case has finally seen a conclusive stage.
The CAT upheld the CCP’s decision to impose Rs150 million on Mezan for its violation, and the matter has finally reached a conclusion. Just as Profit used the story to cover how the regulator had been rendered toothless, an improvement in enforcement; warrants a story on how the regulator is doing now. Has it been able to address the structural problems?
Mezan’s delay tactic, not a new one:
When the CCP was set up in 2010, most Pakistani legacy industries had fallen into a habit of enjoying a non-regulated competitive environment.
Mezan’s brazen delay tactic was straight out of a playbook used by many powerful companies in Pakistan. At one point, how to get away with defying the Competition Commission seemed less like a question and more like an instruction manual. The CCP, the country’s antitrust watchdog established under the Competition Act, 2010, found itself helpless as dozens of firms from industries as diverse as sugar, cement, telecom, and fertilizers rushed to courts to clip its wings.
Some challenged specific inquiries or show-cause notices, while others questioned the very constitutionality of the competition law and the CCP’s authority to enforce it. By 2009–2010 (soon after the new law was passed), an onslaught of litigation had secured broad injunctions that froze the CCP’s actions for years.
At stake, besides consumers’ rights and fair play in markets, was a mountain of penalties, an estimated Rs 68 billion in fines that the CCP had levied on law-breaking companies, which went uncollected. What could the regulator do? To understand this, the energy drink case gives good examples.
Is this it for Storm?
Returning to where we began, the long-running Sting–Storm energy drink dispute has finally reached a conclusion. After the Lahore High Court’s mid-2024 decision unblocking the case, the CCP moved forward and issued its order against Mezan’s Storm drink. The verdict: Mezan had indeed engaged in deceptive marketing by packaging Storm to look confusingly similar to Pepsi’s Sting, in breach of Section 10 of the Competition Act.
The CCP’s detailed inquiry found near-identical branding elements, a red bottle and label, aggressive font, and lightning-themed imagery, clearly intended to piggyback off Sting’s reputation.
In late 2025, the Commission imposed a Rs150 million fine on Mezan for this copycat strategy, maintaining what the CCP had earlier decided, 7 years ago. It also made a point to declare that holding a trademark (Mezan did have “Storm” registered) is not a defense if the overall marketing is deceiving consumers.
For the CCP, this outcome was more than just one company’s punishment, it was a proof of concept that perseverance pays off. A case that started in 2018, and seemed hopelessly stalled by 2021, was resolved in 2025 under the revitalized enforcement regime. The makers of Storm, who once appeared to be “getting away” with defiance, ultimately could not.
In response to Profit’s query about whether the decision would involve removing the current branding of Mezan’s Storm drink, the CCP confirmed that the company is directed to immediately cease and desist from using any trade dress that closely resembles PepsiCo’s Sting energy drink.
The Commission spokesperson emphasized that Mezan is required to stop advertising, displaying, or adopting any branding that could potentially confuse consumers. Additionally, Mezan must submit a compliance report to the Registrar Office.
Explaining the consequences of Mezan failing to comply with the penalty, the CCP outlined the enforcement measures in place. If Mezan does not deposit the penalty within 60 days, the Commission may impose an additional penalty of PKR 100,000 per day. Furthermore, the CCP retains the right to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 38 of the Competition Act, in addition to requiring Mezan to submit the compliance report.
Profit also asked the CCP if the penalty was enough. Provided that all the time in which the case was stalled, Strom remained in circulation with the same packaging, carving out a negligible, yet arbitrary share of the energy drink market. The CCP explained, “The CCP imposed a penalty of PKR 150 million for violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010 (deceptive marketing). While the order records that proceedings were delayed due to litigation and stay orders obtained by Mezan, it does not impose a separate monetary penalty specifically for delay. The PKR 150 million penalty constitutes the principal fine under this decision, subject to additional consequences in case of non-compliance.”
Regarding whether Mezan still had any legal respite, the CCP clarified that the Lahore High Court had dismissed Mezan’s writ petition challenging the proceedings. The court had found that premature challenges to show-cause notices were not maintainable, and the intra-court appeal was also rejected. With this ruling, the CCP was able to conclude its inquiry. Under the Competition Act, appeals against CCP orders lie before the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT), meaning that Mezan still has the option to file an appeal, though it will not automatically delay enforcement.
A Long Legal Shadow Lifts:
For over a decade, Pakistan’s competition regime was stuck in limbo. The Competition Commission had replaced the old Monopolies Control Authority with high hopes of curbing cartels and abuse of dominance, but it was soon mired in court challenges. It wasn’t until October 2020 that a major breakthrough came. A full bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) finally dismissed a batch of long-pending petitions from various industries that had been questioning the CCP’s establishment and the 2010 Act.
The court categorically rejected the argument that competition was a provincial subject under the 18th Amendment. It also ruled that the creation of a dedicated Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) was constitutional, noting that specialized tribunals for federal subjects do not amount to a “parallel judiciary” forbidden by the Constitution.
Yet, even with the law itself upheld, the CCP’s enforcement remained stymied by another hurdle. After 2016, the Competition Appellate Tribunal — the key forum meant to hear appeals against CCP orders — had become dysfunctional, largely because no chairperson was appointed for years. This meant that if the CCP passed an order against a company, the company could simply file an appeal and, with the tribunal headless, the appeal would not be heard indefinitely, grounding enforcement actions to a halt.
By late 2023, the CCP was sitting on over 550 pending cases and appeals in various courts and the defunct tribunal, representing billions in fines and remedies that were stuck in legal purgatory. A dramatic illustration was the sugar sector: in 2019, the CCP had slapped a whopping Rs44 billion penalty on the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA) and member mills for cartelization, but the case languished on appeal for years with no tribunal to decide it.
Similarly, inquiries into suspected collusion in cement, banking, automobiles, and other sectors remained unresolved, sapping the deterrent power of the antitrust law.
The Tribunal Strikes Back:
The stalemate began to end only when the government finally moved to revive the Competition Appellate Tribunal. In late November 2023, after a 7-year hiatus, a retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, was appointed as the tribunal’s Chairman.
His arrival instantly breathed life into the appeals process. For the first time since 2016, companies and the CCP had an active forum to adjudicate competition cases on their merits. Stakeholders and observers welcomed this as a critical step to unclog the backlog of pending appeals.
Justice Miankhel wasted little time, and in the following months, the tribunal started chipping away at years-old cases. However, this progress was briefly interrupted when Miankhel was elevated to the Supreme Court (as an ad-hoc judge) in mid-2024, leaving the tribunal without a head once more.
Fearing a slide back into paralysis, the government acted with unusual swiftness. In February 2025, it appointed Justice (R) Sajjad Ali Shah, another eminent former Supreme Court justice, as the new CAT Chairman, along with two technical members to complete the bench.
Under Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, the tribunal picked up the pace dramatically, some would say dangerously. However, in just the first few months, it decided 121 out of 210 pending appeals, slashing the backlog of appeals by about 58%. Cases that had gathered dust for nearly a decade were finally reaching judgments.
Enforcement:
Equally important, the CCP began to actually collect fines that had long been stayed. With the legal logjam clearing, companies could no longer assume that a penalty would remain tied up in litigation forever.
In one year, the CCP recovered PKR 360 million in fines, more than it had managed in the entire 2007–2022 period.
By the end of 2025, total recoveries since 2023 crossed Rs1.19 billion, a quantum leap from the paltry Rs200 million recovered in the prior 17 years. The era of “paying later (or never)” has at least come to a close.
Perhaps just as notable as the speed-up was the quality of the tribunal’s decisions. Unlike the dreaded “parallel judiciary” the naysayers had warned about, the CAT upheld the sanctity of competition law (on most occasions).
For instance, when Reckitt Benckiser (maker of Strepsils) failed to pursue its appeal, the tribunal dismissed it, effectively maintaining a Rs150 million fine the CCP had imposed for misleading health claims.
The CAT similarly upheld penalties against the Pakistan Vanaspati Manufacturers Association (PVMA) (cooking oil ghee cartel case), the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (ICAP), and even a private school chain for deceptive advertising.
On the other hand, in some appeals, the tribunal exercised discretion to reduce excessive fines for example, in cases involving At-Tahur (PREMA milk), Diamond Paints, and a medical equipment firm (3N LifeMed), it agreed with the CCP’s findings of violation but lowered the financial penalty in light of mitigating factors.
When debating whether the CCP is changing, one high-profile case deserves special mention here: the sugar cartel saga. As noted, the CCP’s original order in 2019 had levied an unprecedented Rs44 billion fine on the sugar industry for collusive price-fixing. A brave and bold step.
This case can be a litmus test for the revived system, and it really is. It goes to show how every level of change has its limitations. In 2025, the Competition Tribunal finally heard the sugar cartel appeal as well, after a long delay. In its judgment, the tribunal did not let the sugar mills off the hook, but it also did not maintain the fine. The tribunal resorted to spotting a brand new procedural irregularity in the CCP’s deciding bench. So now the case is back to the CCP to adjudicate again, delaying justice but with the right amount of expediency.
To mention some similarly tricky yet tough decisions that the CCP took. The influential fertilizer sector is worth a mention. Imposing Rs375 million in penalties on the Fertiliser Manufacturers of Pakistan Advisory Council (FMPAC) and six major fertilizer companies. The charge: engaging in anti-competitive coordination that likely included price manipulation or production quotas to the detriment of farmers and the agriculture sector.
This case is notable because it targets a trade association at the heart of a key agribusiness industry often, such associations can become venues for collusion under the guise of “industry coordination.”
The CCP’s enforcement drive in 2025 cut across sectors previously seen as untouchable. Hyundai Nishat’s overnight withdrawal of its Tucson “introductory price” earned a Rs25 million fine, signaling that even new entrants would be held to account.
Real estate developers pushing misleading government-linked claims, pharmaceutical distributors suspected of price-fixing, and private schools inflating advertising claims also came under scrutiny. The regulator additionally moved against toxic skin creams, dubious tractor fuel-saving claims, and issued fresh show-cause notices to sugar, steel, and edible-oil players making clear that from cars to commodities, businesses would face tougher oversight.
Courts, long a bottleneck for competition enforcement, shifted decisively in support of the regulator. A landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling in the Dalda case confirmed that the CCP can initiate inquiries and demand information without prior judicial approval, closing the door on tactics used to block investigations.
The Lahore High Court reinforced this in 2025 by rejecting poultry-sector petitions aimed at halting a CCP probe and warning against interference at the inquiry or show-cause stage. These rulings strengthened the CCP’s hand, reduced space for procedural stalling, and enabled far more assertive competition regulation than Pakistan has seen in years.
Barring a few politically important instances, the CCP in 2025 launched a blitz of enforcement actions across industries. According to its annual report and official statements, the Commission issued 47 show-cause notices and passed 11 major orders under the Competition Act during the year.
The CCP spokesperson told Profit that one of the most critical challenges faced by the Commission was a severe legal backlog, with 567 cases pending before various courts as of August 2023. Following the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT), the appellate mechanism became fully functional, significantly expediting the legal process. In parallel, the CCP restructured its Legal and Prosecution wings and adopted an aggressive case-management and follow-up strategy. This overhaul resulted in 434 cases being decided, leading to an approximate 70 percent reduction in the overall pendency.
The spokesperson further added that this improvement in adjudication and enforcement translated into tangible outcomes, enabling the recovery of PKR 1.36 billion in penalties. This amount exceeded the cumulative recoveries of the CCP over the previous sixteen years combined, marking a significant achievement in the Commission’s efforts to enforce competition laws more effectively.
Companies are starting to realize that violating competition law; be it forming a cartel, abusing a dominant position, or deceiving consumers, now carries a real risk of timely punishment. The deterrent effect, long missing in Pakistan’s markets, may finally be taking hold.
If sustained, these changes could have far-reaching benefits. Robust competition typically means lower prices, better quality, and more innovation in the long run, as companies can no longer coast on collusion or monopolistic practices.
For instance, if the sugar industry knows that price-fixing will be swiftly penalized, mills have a stronger incentive to compete on efficiency rather than form cartels which could stabilize or even reduce sugar prices for the public. Similarly, breaking the “on-money” culture in autos could push car manufacturers to improve delivery times and service to actually compete for customers, rather than profiting from artificial scarcity.
The recent successes have also shored up the CCP’s institutional credibility. After years of being questioned and challenged, the Commission is now on firmer footing with clear judicial precedents on its side.
That said, the journey is only beginning, and challenges remain to cementing a culture of competition. One key task is to ensure the Competition Appellate Tribunal remains continuously functional. The government has learned the hard way that any gap at the tribunal’s top can throw enforcement into disarray. With Justice Sajjad Ali Shah having retired in August 2025, the prompt appointment of Justice ® Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar in October 2025 as the new CAT Chairman was a circumspect move.
Justice Ghaffar, a former Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, is expected to carry forward the momentum built by his predecessors.
Much like any expedited process, the CCP’s change will come with grievances, particularly from the industry and investors. While some of them may only be a continuation of the market’s bad habits, others could have weight to them. It is, however, important to understand that a toothless and non-performing regulator is, to an extent, worse than a selectively performing one.
The coming years will reveal whether this was a one-time burst or the new normal. If all goes well, Pakistan’s consumers and businesses can look forward to a marketplace where fair competition thrives, where newcomers can challenge old guard companies on merit, and where consumers don’t have to pay the hidden “tax” of cartelized pricing.
The saga of Sting vs Storm, once a story of regulatory impotence, now stands as a cautionary tale to incumbents: you might run, you might hide, but eventually, the law catches up with you.
