Member Vetting Process
Log In
About
Members
News
Awards
Contact
Member Vetting Process
Log In
Log In
Member Search
Specialism
Law Firm
Advisory Firm
Country
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bermuda
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
British Virgin Islands
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo (Dem. Rep.)
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Kenya
Korea (South)
Kosovo
Kuwait
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Ireland
Romania
Russia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos Islands
UAE
Uganda
UK
Ukraine
Uruguay
USA
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
Practice Area
Abuse of Dominance
Accountancy
Accounting and Tax
Acquisition Finance
Administrative
Admiralty
Agribusiness
AI
Alternative Asset Management
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Finance
Arbitration
Art
Asset Protection
Asset Protection Structures
Audit & Assurance
Audit & Finance
Audit and Accounting Services
Audit and Administration
Aviation
Banking & Finance
Banking Litigation
Bankruptcy
Broker Risk Management
Business
Business Formation
Business Immigration
Capital Markets
Citizenship
Citizenship by Descent
Civil
Civil Litigation
Civil Rights
Commercial
Commercial Arbitration
Commercial Contracts
Commercial Leasing
Commercial Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Commercial Property
Commercial Real Estate
Commercial Tenancy
Commodities Trading
Commodity Disputes
Company
Company & Fund Administration
Company Formation
Competition
Compliance
Compliance & Regulatory
Construction
Contentious Probate
Contract
Contractual Disputes
Copyright
Corporate
Corporate Accountant & VAT
Corporate Criminal
Corporate Finance
Corporate Governance
Corporate Immigration
Corporate Investment
Corporate Restructuring
Corporate Risk Management
Corporate Services
Corporate Support Services
Corporate Tax
Costs
Criminal
Criminal Defence
Criminal Fraud
Cross Border Estates
Cross-Border
Cross-Border Transactions
Cultural Property
Customs Advisory
Data & Innovation
Data Privacy
Data Protection
Debt Collection
Debt Recovery
Defence & Security Procurement
Digital Transformation Consultancy
Dispute Resolution
Divorce
Domestic & International Tax
Due Diligence
Economic Criminal
Employee Benefits
Employment
Employment Litigation
Energy
Energy & Natural Resources
Environmental
ERISA & Employment Benefits
Estate Planning
European
Expert Witness Property Valuation
Family
Fiduciary
Financial Services
Financial Services & Regulatory
Financial Transactions
FinTech
Fiscal
Foreign Direct Investments
Foreign Investments
Franchise
Fraud
Full Service
Fund Administration
Gaming
Health & Safety
Healthcare
Healthcare M&A
Hedge Funds
Human Rights & Labour Rights
Immigration
India Desk
Industrial Relations
Information Technology
Infrastructure
Inheritance
Insolvency
Insurance
Insurance & Reinsurance
Insurance Litigation
Intellectual Property
International Arbitration
International Business
International Corporate
International Debt Collection
International Dispute Resolution
International Employment
International Franchise
International Fraud
International Litigation
International Private
International Real Estate
International Succession
International Tax
International Tax Planning
International Trade
International Trade & National Security
Investigations
Investment
IP Litigation
IT
IT Services
Joint Ventures
Labour & Employment
Leasehold Enfranchisement
Legal Malpractice
Legal Risk Management
Life Science Patent
Life Sciences
Litigation
Litigation & Arbitration
M&A
Maritime
Maritime Arbitration
Matrimonial
Media & Entertainment
Mediation
Mediation & Arbitration
Medical Malpractice
Mining
Neuroradiology Expert Witness
New Technologies
Oil & Gas
Orthopaedic Expert Witness
Patent Litigation
Patent Prosecution
Patents
Payroll Accounting
Personal Injury
Personal Injury - Plaintiff
Pharmaceutical Sector Patents
Pharmaceuticals & Life Sciences
Private Client
Private Equity
Private Funds
Probate & Inheritance
Products
Project
Project Finance
Property Valuation
Public Procurement
Real Estate
Real Estate - Property
Regulatory
Regulatory & Compliance
Renewable Energy
Restructuring
SaaS/PaaS
Securities
Securities Litigation
Shipping & Admiralty
Shipping & Maritime
Shipping Finance
Sports
Start Up
Succession
Tax
Tax Litigation
Tax Planning
Tax Relocation
Tax Services
Tax Structures
Technology
Telecommunications
TMT
Trademark
Transaction
Transfer Pricing
Transportation
Trust & Estates
Trust Administration
Venture Capital
Wealth & Estate Planning
Wealth Management
Wealth Planning
Whistleblower
White Collar Crime
Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning
Workers Compensation
Workplace Law & Investigations
Uber and Ola Win Antitrust Case in India(?) – No Hub and Spoke Cartel with Drivers: NCLAT Dismisses Appeal on Grounds of Lack of Locus Standi
Published: Friday, July 24, 2020
By way of judgment dated 29.05.2020, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has exonerated cab aggregators Ola and Uber from allegations of facilitating price fixing through their drivers under a “hub and spoke’ cartel arrangement while dismissing the appeal filed by an individual on the ground of lack of locus standi. The NCLAT, inter alia, held that an informant before the Competition Commission of India (“CCI/Commission”) has to be a person who has suffered invasion of his legal rights as a consumer or beneficiary of healthy competitive practices.
Background
The informant (an independent law practitioner) had initially filed an Information before the Commission alleging that the online cab aggregators Ola and Uber were using their respective algorithms to facilitate price fixing between drivers. In other words, the informant alleged that there was collusion amongst the drivers through the cab aggregators who purportedly used algorithms to fix prices which the drivers were bound to accept. As per the informant, algorithmic pricing adopted by Ola & Uber takes away the liberty of individual drivers to compete and amounts to price fixing through a “hub and spoke” cartel like arrangement.
The Commission closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”), without calling for any response from either Uber and Ola, holding that there was neither any instance of any agreement/understanding between the cab aggregators and their respective drivers nor between the drivers inter se qua price fixing. The Commission had also noticed that Ola and Uber being Cab Aggregators operating through their respective apps were not an association of drivers and they acted as separate entities from their respective drivers. A rider books his ride at any given time which is accepted by an anonymous driver available in the area and such driver has no opportunity to co-ordinate its action with other drivers thereby ruling out such activity being termed as a cartel activity. The Commission ruled out any hub and spoke cartel like arrangement between Ola/Uber and their respective drivers.
The informant, being aggrieved by the Commission’s decision filed an appeal before the NCLAT levelling allegations of price fixing in contravention of Section 3 and price discrimination in contravention of Section 4 by Ola and Uber.
Submissions on locus standi
It was submitted by Ola that the Informant is not an aggrieved person and that no prejudice has been caused to him and on the basis of foreign law, an inquiry initiated in a foreign jurisdiction cannot be basis for interfering with the impugned order nor can same be done on the basis of opinion of authors of some article in foreign journals. On the other hand, the informant contended that ‘Informant’ falls within the definition of “any person” under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act which includes an individual who can file an information virtually like an F.I.R in a criminal case can be filed by anybody.
NCLAT Decision
Issue of Locus standi
The NCLAT on the issue of locus noted:
“The question that arises for consideration is whether a ‘person’ would mean any natural person irrespective of he being a consumer who has suffered invasion of his legal rights or a person whose legal rights have been or are likely to be jeopardised by the alleged anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position. It is true that the concept of locus standi has been diluted to some extent by allowing public interest litigation, class action and actions initiated at the hands of consumer and trade associations. Even the whistle blowers have been clothed with the right to seek redressal of grievances affecting public interest by enacting a proper legal framework. However, the fact remains that when a statute like the Competition Act specifically provides for the mode of taking cognizance of allegations regarding contravention of provisions relating to certain anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position by an enterprise in a particular manner and at the instance of a person apart from other modes viz. suo motu or upon a reference from the competitive government or authority, reference to receipt of any information from any person in section 19(1) (a) of the Act has necessarily to be construed as a reference to a person who has suffered invasion of his legal rights as a consumer or beneficiary of healthy competitive practices. Any other interpretation would make room for unscrupulous people to rake issues of anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position targeting some enterprises with oblique motives.”
Accordingly, the NCLAT held that there was nothing on record to show that the informant has suffered a legal injury at the hands of Ola and Uber as a consumer or as a member of any consumer or trade association and therefore the informant has no locus standi to maintain an action qua the alleged contravention of Act by Ola and/or Uber.
On Merits
Even after holding that the informant had no locus, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal on the basis of merits as well. The NCLAT noted that the business model of Ola and Uber does not support the allegation of Informant as regards price discrimination. It was observed that there was no allegation of collusion between the Cab Aggregators through their algorithms which implied an admission on the part of Informant that the two taxi service providers are operating independent of each other. The NCLAT observed that the concept of hub and spoke cartel stated to be applicable to the business model of Ola and Uber as a hub with their platforms acting as a hub for collusion inter se the spokes i.e. drivers resting upon US Class Action Suit titled “Spencer Meyer v. Travis Kalanick” has no application as the business model of Ola and Uber (as it operates in India) does not manifest in restricting price competition among drivers to the detriment of its riders. The matter relates to foreign antitrust jurisdiction with different connotation and cannot be imported to operate within the ambit and scope of the mechanism dealing with redressal of competition concerns under the Act.
Further, as regards Ola, it was observed that that Ola platform have no inter se connectivity and lack the possibility of sharing information with regard to the commuters and the earnings they make out of the rides provided which excludes the probability of collusion inter se the drivers through the platform of Ola. With respect to Uber, it was observed that it provides a technology service to its driver partners and riders through the Uber App and assist them in finding a potential ride and also recommends a fare for the same. However, the driver partners as also the riders are free to accept such ride or choose the App of competing service, including choosing alternative modes of transport. Even with regard to fare though Uber App would recommend a fare, the driver partners have liberty to negotiate a lower fare. It is, therefore, evident that the Cab Aggregators do not function as an association of its driver partners.
On the issue of abuse of dominant position, it was noted that neither Ola nor Uber was holding a dominant position to impose price discrimination considering that there are other players offering taxi service/ transportation service/ service providers in transport sector. Moreover, Ola and Uber are not operating as a joint venture or a group, thus both enterprises taken together cannot be deemed to be holding a dominant position within the ambit of Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed based on lack locus standi as well as on merits.
Comment: This order of NCLAT, unless challenged by a second appeal in Supreme Court, seems to close the growing challenge to the controversial application-based business model of cab aggregators, at least for the time being, in India. On merits, It is surprising the both the CCI and the appellate tribunal chose to believe on the averments made by both Uber and Ola on their face value without considering it necessary to investigate the matter to find any possibility of harm to competition or whether the algorithms were programmed with a pre-determined manner to produce surged pricing and whether such discriminatory pricing harmed consumers ,as compared with the standard meter taxis prices etc. The order, in my view, exhibits that the competition regime in India is still far away from assessing algorithms-based collusions by e-platforms.
On locus, in my humble view, the order of NCLAT is not in the spirit of the original 2007 amendment to the Competition Act, 2002, whereby the concept of “complainant” was replaced with that of an ‘Informant”. As per the statement of reasons before the said amendment an Informant may or may not have any personal interest or suffered any personal injury from the impugned anti-competitive conduct since such conduct is against the society in rem and it is the duty of every citizen to point out such illegal conduct to the Commission and the Commission is mandated to inquire into it if it finds that there exists a prima facie case to investigate . Interestingly, the Commission itself had not closed the case because of lack of locus standi of the Informant but on merits, which was rightly questioned in the appeal.
MM Sharma
Head - Competition Law & Policy
Vaish Associates Advocates
E-mmsharma@vaishlaw.com
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Member Introduction
Stephen Vlock
Vlock & Associates, P.C.
New York, USA
View Profile
Michael A. Kelly
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
California, USA
View Profile
Hillary Hughes
Foster Garvey PC
New York, USA
View Profile
Daniel Brennan
Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Illinois, USA
View Profile
The Lawyer Network in numbers
0
+
Members Firms
0
+
Countries
0
+
Practice Areas
0
+
Member Firms
Total Staff