“South Africa’s Competition Commission has referred GE South Africa, GE Medical Systems South Africa, Siemens Healthcare and Philips South Africa Commercial to the Competition Tribunal over allegations that restrictions on access to spare parts, diagnostic software, technical information and specialised training limited competition in the servicing and repair of medical imaging equipment. The case raises wider business-policy questions about market competition, repair access, healthcare costs and the ability of independent service providers to compete; the allegations have not yet been determined by the Tribunal.”
South Africa’s competition-policy framework is facing another important test following the Competition Commission’s decision to refer four medical imaging equipment suppliers to the Competition Tribunal over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the repair, servicing and maintenance market.
The announcement, issued on 8 October 2026, concerns GE South Africa (Pty) Ltd, GE Medical Systems South Africa (Pty) Ltd, Siemens Healthcare (Pty) Ltd and Philips South Africa Commercial (Pty) Ltd. According to the Commission, its investigation uncovered allegations that independent clinical engineers were denied or had restricted access to essential parts, diagnostic software, service keys, technical information and specialised training needed to compete effectively in the maintenance of diagnostic medical imaging equipment.
The case is significant because it connects business regulation with the operation of essential healthcare infrastructure. It also highlights the government’s broader challenge of promoting competition, supporting independent enterprises and ensuring that expensive equipment can be maintained efficiently throughout its working life.
However, the referral is not a final finding of wrongdoing. The Competition Tribunal must determine whether the alleged conduct contravened South Africa’s Competition Act and, if so, which remedies are appropriate.
Why the medical equipment sector matters
Diagnostic medical imaging equipment plays an essential role in modern healthcare. X-ray machines, ultrasound systems, magnetic resonance imaging scanners, computed tomography equipment and PET/CT systems help healthcare professionals identify diseases, assess injuries and determine suitable treatment.
These technologies are used across a wide range of medical services, including cancer diagnosis, cardiovascular care, trauma management and the monitoring of chronic illnesses. Their reliability therefore affects not only hospitals’ operating budgets but also patients’ access to timely diagnosis.
The Competition Commission’s statement emphasises that these systems can cost millions of rand and commonly remain in service for between 10 and 15 years. During that period, hospitals require replacement components, preventive maintenance, software updates and specialist repairs.
Consequently, the market for after-sales services has substantial economic importance. Purchasing a machine is only the initial investment; maintaining it throughout its operational life can represent a significant continuing expense.
If healthcare providers have access to only a limited number of repair options, they may have less bargaining power when negotiating maintenance agreements, service charges and response times. Conversely, effective competition between qualified service providers can give hospitals more options when seeking reliable and affordable technical support.
These are the broader policy considerations behind the Commission’s investigation.
The allegations against the suppliers
The Commission alleges that the companies restricted or denied independent clinical engineers access to resources necessary for servicing and repairing diagnostic imaging systems.
The resources identified in the official statement include spare parts, diagnostic software, service keys, technical information and specialised training. These inputs can be crucial because modern medical imaging systems rely on integrated hardware, proprietary software and complex calibration procedures.
Without the appropriate technical resources, an independent engineer may be unable to diagnose a fault, complete a repair safely or return a machine to service within an acceptable period.
The Commission argues that the alleged restrictions limited competition in the aftermarket for servicing and repairs, potentially contributing to higher costs and fewer options for healthcare facilities. It has cited provisions of the Competition Act 89 of 1998, as amended, including section 8(1)(c) and, alternatively, section 8(1)(d)(ii).
The distinction between allegations and established facts is important. The referral identifies concerns that the regulator wants the Tribunal to examine; it does not establish that each respondent has violated the law.
The Tribunal’s proceedings will determine the legal outcome. Until then, the companies’ conduct should be discussed in the context of the Commission’s allegations rather than treated as proven misconduct.
Competition policy and control over repair markets
The case illustrates a wider business-policy issue: the relationship between manufacturers’ control over specialised technology and independent businesses’ ability to compete in after-sales markets.
Medical equipment manufacturers may develop proprietary systems that require specialised tools, software and technical expertise. Such requirements can reflect legitimate considerations involving product reliability, cybersecurity, regulatory compliance and patient safety.
Nevertheless, the existence of technical complexity does not automatically resolve whether access restrictions are competitively justified. Competition authorities must consider whether particular practices unnecessarily prevent qualified independent providers from offering services that hospitals could otherwise purchase competitively.
This balance is particularly important in markets where the original equipment supplier also operates in the repair and maintenance market.
Where independent providers cannot obtain essential technical information or components, competition may be weakened even when several firms operate in the broader equipment industry. Hospitals may technically have different equipment brands available when purchasing new machines, yet face limited alternatives once a specific system has been installed.
The resulting question for business policy is whether restrictions are necessary for legitimate technical reasons or whether they improperly limit competition in an aftermarket.
The Tribunal’s assessment will be important in clarifying how South Africa’s competition law applies to the specific allegations in this case.
Possible implications for hospitals and healthcare costs
Equipment downtime can disrupt hospital operations and delay diagnostic procedures. When a machine is unavailable, patients may have to wait longer, be referred to another facility or undergo alternative investigations where appropriate.
The effects may be particularly difficult for public hospitals and rural healthcare facilities that have fewer alternative service providers or limited access to replacement equipment.
If maintenance costs are higher than they would be under effective competition, healthcare institutions may have less money available for staffing, medicines, diagnostic services and other operational requirements. However, the extent of any such effect in this particular case has not been quantified in the Commission’s statement.
The regulator’s concerns nevertheless highlight why repair-market competition matters beyond the companies directly involved.
Healthcare institutions must evaluate the full cost of ownership when acquiring complex equipment. Purchase prices are only one part of that calculation; service contracts, component availability, maintenance requirements, software support and equipment downtime can also influence long-term affordability.
A competitive repair market could give hospitals greater flexibility in selecting maintenance arrangements. Any improvement, however, would depend on qualified providers being able to deliver safe, technically appropriate and reliable services.
Opportunities and challenges for independent businesses
Independent clinical engineering companies may have opportunities to expand if they can obtain the resources needed to service sophisticated medical systems.
These businesses can potentially compete through specialist expertise, regional coverage, responsive maintenance and alternative service agreements. A broader network of qualified providers could also create opportunities for technical training, employment and local enterprise development.
However, access to parts and software alone would not guarantee successful competition. Independent companies would still need appropriate qualifications, trained personnel, reliable supply chains, suitable insurance and procedures that protect equipment integrity and patient safety.
They would also need to demonstrate that their work meets applicable legal, technical and healthcare requirements.
For small and medium-sized enterprises, the case highlights the importance of business-policy rules that allow credible new entrants to participate in markets where established suppliers possess significant technical advantages.
At the same time, regulation must avoid creating incentives for unsafe or inadequately supervised repair work. Effective policy should promote competition without compromising the quality and reliability of medical services.
What the case means for South African business regulation
The referral demonstrates how competition enforcement can affect industries beyond traditional consumer markets such as food retail, telecommunications and financial services.
Business regulation is especially important where a company’s commercial practices may influence access to essential infrastructure or services. In this instance, the regulator’s concerns involve the availability and cost of maintenance for equipment used in medical diagnosis.
The case also highlights the importance of regulatory certainty. Companies need clear rules governing lawful commercial conduct, while hospitals and independent service providers need confidence that competition concerns can be investigated through established legal procedures.
For investors, predictable enforcement can help clarify the conditions under which firms compete. However, uncertainty about the eventual outcome means that businesses should avoid assuming that the referral will necessarily lead to penalties or specific changes in market practices.
The Tribunal will determine whether the alleged conduct breached the law and, where appropriate, what remedies should follow.
What companies and healthcare providers should watch
The next important development will be the Tribunal’s consideration of the case. Its findings could clarify the application of competition law to the servicing and repair of specialised medical technology.
Healthcare providers may also wish to review their procurement and maintenance arrangements, including contract terms, repair response times, access to spare parts, software support and the availability of qualified alternative service providers.
Such reviews can help hospitals understand their exposure to equipment downtime and long-term maintenance costs, regardless of the case’s eventual outcome.
Equipment suppliers, meanwhile, should assess whether their service arrangements comply with applicable competition rules while maintaining legitimate standards for technical safety and product performance.
Independent repair businesses should continue to ensure that their work is appropriately qualified, compliant and supported by reliable technical processes.
For policymakers, the broader challenge is to encourage an environment in which specialised businesses can compete fairly without weakening the safeguards needed in healthcare.
Conclusion
The Competition Commission’s referral of four medical imaging equipment suppliers to the Competition Tribunal places an important business-policy issue before South Africa’s competition authorities.
At its centre is the question of whether restrictions on access to technical resources limited independent competition in a market essential to hospital operations and medical diagnosis.
The outcome remains undecided. Nevertheless, the case illustrates why effective competition policy must consider not only the initial sale of complex equipment but also the repair, servicing and maintenance markets that develop after installation.
For South Africa, the wider policy objective is to support fair competition, encourage capable independent enterprises, protect healthcare affordability and maintain reliable technical standards. The Tribunal’s eventual findings will determine how these considerations apply to the specific allegations against the companies involved.
