Fair Competition (Abuse of Dominant Position) Regulations 2026, Tanzania

Fair Competition (Abuse of Dominant Position) Regulations 2026 (GN 244 2026) has been published which came into force on 14 August 2026. Generally, the Regulations provide determinant factors for a dominant position and abuse of dominant position in Tanzania. 

Please see below summary of some of the key provisions of the Regulations.

1. Determination of dominant position: Fair Competition Commission (FCC) shall determine whether a person has a dominant position in a market by considering the following factors:
   • Market share in a relevant market in relation to its competitors should not exceed 40% for a significant period (Regulation 3(a)).
   • Extent of customer reliance on its good or service which may reduce pressure (Regulation 3(b)).
   • Ability to set a price independently from its competitors (Regulation 3(c)).
   • Ability of large customers to counterbalance a person’s dominance by switching to credible alternative within the time (Regulation 3(d)).
   • Competition from imported good or service (Regulation 3(e)).
   • Barriers to entry or expansion (Regulation 3(g)).
2. Assessment of a relevant market: FCC shall consider the product market and geographic market when assessing the relevant market (Regulation 4).
3. Determination of abuse dominant position: person shall be regarded to have abused a dominant position where its dominant position in the relevant market has been established and engages in conduct which have effect or likely effect of exploiting customers or preventing, restricting or distorting competition (Regulation 5).
4. Definition of unfair trading and conditions: unfair trading is where a person is engaged in the exploitative abuse of dominant position. Person is considered to have engaged in exploitative abuse of dominant position if that person does the following:
   • Unfairly extort low price from supplier; or
   • Imposes other terms or conditions to the customers or suppliers which the FCC considers to be exploitative.
5. The conditions for determining the existence of exploitative abuse have been provided for under Regulation 6(2)(a) – (j).
6. If complete and sufficient cost data is not available, FCC can refer to price differences for the same or similar products across different geographic markets to determine exploitative abuse of dominant position (Regulation 6(3).
7. Declaration as to cross subsidization: FCC shall declare the existence of cross subsidisation in the relevant market when the following circumstances occur:
   • Person is a dominant position in at least one market.
   • There is existence of cost shifting of goods, market or service to another.
   • Existence of predatory pricing or price which is below average avoidance costs.
   • If there is harm to consumers.
   • If there is impediment of market entry or the ability of smaller competitors to survive.
   • If there is the conduct which its object, effects or likely to appreciably prevent, restrict or distorts competition.
8. Declaration as to price discrimination: FCC shall declare the existence of price discrimination in the relevant market where the following circumstances occur:
   • Person is in a dominant position.
   • Dominant person has ability to segment the market according to their ability to pay.
   • Price of the same product or service is different across market segment or different customers without justification.
   • Product or service is the same.
   • Dominant person is able to control arbitrage.
   • If there conduct which its object, effects or likely to appreciably prevent, restrict or distorts competition.
9. Declaration as to abuse of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): FCC shall declare the existence of abuse of IPR in the relevant market where any of the following occurs:
   • Holder of IPR refuses to license IPR without justification especially where the refusal is forecloses competition.
   • Licensing terms or royalty rates are unreasonably high and disproportionate to the value of IPR.
   • Licensing terms apply unequally to different parties without a legitimate reason, favouring some competitors over others.
   • IPR holder requires licensee to accept additional unnecessary license or conditions.
   • The firm is engaged in practices like creating patent thickets or filing patents strategically to block competitors.
   • IPR holder intimidated legal proceedings solely to harass competitors of delay their entry into the market.
   • Conduct which its object, effects or likely to appreciably prevent, restrict or distorts competition.

NB: fines / penalties – Regulations does not specify any fines or penalties. However, once FCC determines abuse of dominance, it would be enforced under the Fair Competition Act which provides for a fine of not less than 5% but not exceeding 10% of annual turnover which has a source in Mainland Tanzania.