Yesterday, the commission opted to keep the CRR mechanism, which restricts how advertising airtime is sold on ITV1, but said that the system should be removed at some point in the future.
The commission opted to enforce its provisional decision last September to maintain the CRR, which was introduced in 2003 to protect advertisers from the loss of competition when Carlton and Granada merged to form ITV plc.
In its final report, however, the competition body said that ITV1 HD and the long-planned ITV1+1 channel should be factored in future CRR calculations, which would benefit the broadcaster.
"ITV1 remains a 'must have' for certain advertisers and certain types of campaign," said the Competition Commission's Diana Guy, who chaired the CRR review.
"Despite all the changes in this market, no other channel or medium can come close to matching the size of audience that ITV regularly provides. So the essential reason for the CRR undertakings remains: to protect advertisers and other commercial broadcasters."
ITV had hoped that the CRR would be dropped following last month's recommendation by Ofcom that scrapping the remedy would be advisable because "market forces can provide a credible constraint on ITV's pricing".
However, Guy claimed that ITV has "overstated the cost and distortions imposed by CRR", especially in terms of programming capable of attracting large viewing figures.
"When it succeeds in making popular programmes which attract large audiences, CRR does not prevent ITV from reaping the rewards," she said.
Despite opting to maintain the CRR mechanism, Guy said that the entire TV advertising industry is now in need of a review.
"Our review looked only at the circumstances surrounding the CRR under-takings in the context of the current television airtime trading system, a system which has a significant influence on the need for CRR to be retained in some form. Although we rejected ITV's alternative remedy proposals as ineffective to prevent ITV from worsening the deals it offers to advertisers, we have no wish to see CRR in place forever," she said.
"Many participants have told us that the system of selling television airtime is far from perfect and we repeat our concerns, also raised in 2003, about the potential anti-competitive effects of 'share of broadcasting' and agency 'umbrella' deals between broadcasters and media agencies. We continue to believe it appropriate for there to be a wider review of the whole system for selling TV advertising."
Reacting to the commission's decision, Crozier claimed that the CRR is "out of touch and damaging for the interests of creative Britain".
He said that it is "unlikely" ITV will challenge the ruling in a judicial review, but it will continue lobbying for change to the system.
"UK media is over-regulated and this has to change if we value and want to sustain a vibrant independent broadcasting sector that can rival the BBC and compete on a global stage," said Crozier.
"In our view [the] decision fires the starting gun for a broader campaign for liberalisation to enable creative Britain and the enterprise media sector to compete on a level playing field against global competition in the digital age.
"Competition law and the regulation of the UK media sector require urgent modernisation to take account of the public interest. A failure to address this will result in lasting damage to the UK’s creative industries and their reputation as global leaders in this field."