The Competition Commission is signalling that it may be willing to cut a deal in its long-running case against MultiChoice over an alleged 2014 market-division pact with decoder supplier Altech UEC — a move that could spare Canal+ a bruising tribunal fight just as it tries to reshape its new South African pay-TV asset.
The regulator’s head of cartels, Makgale Mohlala, has made it clear that the commission is open to settlement talks, even after referring both MultiChoice and Altech UEC to the Competition Tribunal earlier this week. Speaking on Business Day TV, Mohlala said the commission’s “doors are open”, and that it would be ready to engage once the companies were ready to do the same.
That matters because the case now lands on the desk of Canal+, the French media giant that has become MultiChoice’s new parent. Instead of walking into a lengthy hearing, Canal+ may prefer to negotiate an outcome that limits reputational damage and legal uncertainty. A full tribunal showdown could still lead to administrative penalties of up to 10% of annual turnover, which would be a significant risk for any business trying to stabilise and integrate a major African broadcasting operation.
For now, the Competition Commission is sticking to its central allegation: that MultiChoice allegedly discovered Altech UEC was preparing to launch the Altech Node and objected, before using its position as the supplier’s biggest decoder customer to secure an agreement that Altech would stay out of the pay-TV market. The commission says that arrangement amounts to a market-division contravention under the Competition Act.
Mohlala was careful to draw a line around what the commission is actually prosecuting. In his telling, investigators are not trying to prove cash changed hands. The issue, he said, is the agreement itself. That distinction is important, because competition cases often turn less on money trail evidence and more on whether the parties reached an understanding that restricted market access or competition.
The timeline is also striking. The Altech Node was launched in September 2014, about seven months after the alleged agreement was formalised. At the time, Craig Venter, then Altech CEO, told TechCentral the product was not a direct threat to MultiChoice, despite the broadcaster being a major customer of Altech UEC. Venter also said Altech had offered MultiChoice the chance to partner on the launch, but those discussions reportedly went nowhere.
The Node itself was a very different product from the traditional decoder-led pay-TV model that dominated the market at the time. It offered video-on-demand and smart-home functionality, but no linear pay-TV channels. It launched at R3 499, with a R299 monthly subscription, and never really found meaningful retail traction. Within roughly 14 months, the product had been wound down.
MultiChoice competition case puts old pay-TV deal back in the spotlight
The MultiChoice competition case has also reopened a chapter of South African broadcasting history that now feels almost like another era. The hardware, the market, and even the ownership structures have all shifted since 2014, yet the regulator is still pursuing what it sees as an old but serious alleged restraint on competition.
By late 2015, the Node had been pulled, and subscribers were refunded R1 999 per device. Later, Altron sold Altech UEC in 2019 to Skyblu Technologies, a Chinese-owned company controlled by Shenzhen Skyworth Digital Technology. That means the corporate chain around the dispute today is very different from the one that existed when the alleged conduct took place.
Both companies have pushed back strongly. Altron Group said it was aware of the referral and had fully cooperated with the commission throughout the process. The group said it welcomed the chance to take part in tribunal proceedings in line with its usual practice, and stressed its commitment to operating legally and ethically.
MultiChoice, for its part, said the matter relates to a historical supply agreement with a key set-top box supplier that ended in 2015. The broadcaster said it firmly denies any breach of competition law and will consider the referral before responding within the required timelines. That is the sort of firm denial the company would be expected to make at this stage, but it also signals that a contested legal process remains on the table unless settlement talks gain traction.
What makes this matter especially unusual is its age. The commission has not explained why it has moved now on a dispute that is more than 12 years old and involves a product that has long since disappeared from the market. From a newsroom perspective, that raises the obvious question: why this case, and why now? The regulator has not yet given a public explanation.
Still, the timing could be politically and commercially significant. Canal+ is in the process of integrating MultiChoice into a broader African strategy, and any fresh regulatory battle in South Africa adds another layer of complexity. Even if the underlying facts date back to a previous ownership era, the legal exposure sits firmly in the present.
For South Africans watching the pay-TV sector, this is a reminder of how competition disputes can outlive the products and people at their centre. The Altech Node may be gone, the supplier relationship may be history, and the market has moved on — but the MultiChoice competition case is now back in play, and the commission has made it clear it is willing to talk if the other side is ready.