Latest News
Back
Document:
Complaint Regarding Anti – Competitive Conduct By Uber, Ola Dismissed By Apex Court
In the case of Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors., an informant who was an independent practitioner had provided information to the CCI that ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd and Uber Indian Systems Pvt. Ltd. had entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of Section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Commission of India Act 2002.
The informant submitted that a particular type of algorithm was being used by both these companies to calculate the fare that was in turn based on distinct factors and the apps that were being downloaded by the customers, facilitated the payment of the fare. It was submitted, that cab drivers are independent entities who are not employees or agents of Ola or Uber, but the freedom of riders and drivers to choose the best price for the ride was being infringed upon by the algorithm that fixes the prices. The drivers and the customers are at no liberty to neither negotiate fares nor can the drivers offer any discounts for the rides.
Competition Commission of India had held that this instant case was very different from any other cases that they had dealt with in the past, they stated the algorithms are designed in such a manner so as to facilitate price-fixing between the drivers. The companies are in the position to use these algorithms to fix prices which the drivers are bound to accept. The companies also filed a case in NCLAT seeking relief in this matter; NCLAT referred to the case of Spencer Meyer vs. Travis Kalanick and observed that these practices do not qualify as restricting price composition among the drivers.
The SC held that the intervention of CCI, in this case, is not to be ousted. CCI appears to be a proper party to this case and the expert opinion of the commission can be useful in complete and effective adjudication of the matter. The Apex Court concurred and validated the order passed by the CCI. A three-judge Bench of the SC held that looking into the merits of the case they agree with the decision of the CCI and NCLAT that these companies had not formed a cartel either were they engaging in any anti-competitive conduct.
Document:
