- PG Glass and Glasfit allegedly fixed automotive glass prices by coordinating annual percentage increases since 2004.
- The alleged conduct affected motorists and insurance companies across South Africa and constitutes price fixing under the Competition Act.
- The Competition Commission has referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal and is seeking penalties of up to 10 percent of each company’s annual turnover.
PG Glass and Glasfit allegedly fixed the prices of automotive glass in South Africa by coordinating annual price increases and aligning their pricing instead of competing independently.
For more than two decades, the two competitors have been accused of increasing the prices of laminated and toughened automotive glass supplied to motorists and insurance companies by the same percentage point each year, conduct that amounts to price fixing under section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998.
On 17 February 2026, the Competition Commission of South Africa referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal of South Africa for prosecution, alleging that the coordinated pricing began in 2004 and remains ongoing.
The alleged cartel conduct
PG Glass and Glasfit are suppliers of laminated and toughened automotive glass, competing in the market for the distribution and fitment of automotive glass in South Africa. According to the Commission’s investigation, the companies maintained a longstanding arrangement to increase their prices annually by the same percentage point.
In competition law, price fixing occurs when competitors directly or indirectly agree to fix a purchase or selling price or any other trading condition, instead of determining these independently. Section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act prohibits such conduct outright because it removes price rivalry from the market. The Commission alleges that the two firms replaced independent decision-making with coordinated pricing behaviour.
If proven, the alleged conduct would amount to classic cartel behaviour. By moving together on annual increases, the companies are said to have neutralised price competition in a market that directly affects vehicle repair costs and insurance claims.
Impact on motorists and insurers
Automotive glass is not a luxury product. It is a critical safety component in vehicles, and its replacement is often unavoidable following accidents, damage, or wear. The pricing of windscreens and other automotive glass products feeds directly into insurance claims and, ultimately, into insurance premiums paid by consumers.
Commissioner Doris Tshepe underscored the significance of the sector, stating, “Automotive glass forms part of industrial intermediary products, a priority sector for the Commission. Dismantling of the alleged cartel will contribute towards fairer pricing of automotive glass for the benefit of consumers as well as insurance companies.”
Her remarks reflect the regulator’s focus on industrial intermediary products, where coordinated pricing can distort costs across an entire value chain.
Penalties sought
The Commission is seeking an order declaring that PG Glass and Glasfit contravened section 4(1)(b)(i) of the Act. It is also asking the Tribunal to impose an administrative penalty equal to 10 percent of each company’s annual turnover in terms of section 58(1)(a)(iii), read with section 59 of the Act.
The matter will now proceed before the Tribunal, where the allegations and evidence will be tested. If the contraventions are established, the case could mark a significant enforcement action in the automotive glass market and send a clear signal that coordinated pricing in priority sectors will attract serious consequences.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
