Decided on December 15,2020

Samir Agrawal Appellant
Competition Commission Of India And Others Respondents

Cited Judgements :-



R.F.NARIMAN, J. - (1.)The present appeal is at the instance of an Informant who describes himself as an independent practitioner of the law. The Appellant/Informant, by an Information filed on 13.08.2018 ["the Information"], sought that the Competition Commission of India ["CCI"] initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 ["the Act"], into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ["Ola"], and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. [together referred to as "Uber"], alleging that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Act, and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1)read with section 3(4)(e) of the Act. According to the Informant, Uber and Ola provide radio taxi services and essentially operate as platforms through mobile applications ["apps"] which allow riders and drivers, that is, two sides of the platform, to interact. A trip's fare is calculated by an algorithm based on many factors. The apps that are downloaded facilitate payment of the fare by various modes.
(2.)The Informant alleged that due to algorithmic pricing, neither are riders able to negotiate fares with individual drivers for rides that are booked through the apps, nor are the drivers able to offer any discounts. Thus, the pricing algorithm takes away the freedom of riders and drivers to choose the best price on the basis of competition, as both have to accept the price set by the pricing algorithm. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between Ola and Uber with their respective drivers, despite the fact that the drivers are independent entities who are not employees or agents of Ola or Uber, the driver is bound to accept the trip fare reflected in the app at the end of the trip, without having any discretion insofar as the same is concerned. The drivers receive their share of the fare only after the deduction of a commission by Ola and Uber for the services offered to the rider. Therefore, the Informant alleged that the pricing algorithm used by Ola and Uber artificially manipulates supply and demand, guaranteeing higher fares to drivers who would otherwise compete against one and another. Cooperation between drivers, through the Ola and Uber apps, results in concerted action under section 3(3)(a) read with section 3(1) of the Act. Thus, the Informant submitted that the Ola and Uber apps function akin to a trade association, facilitating the operation of a cartel. Further, since Ola and Uber have greater bargaining power than riders in the determination of price, they are able to implement price discrimination, whereby riders are charged on the basis of their willingness to pay and as a result, artificially inflated fares are paid. Various other averments qua resale price maintenance were also made, alleging a contravention of section 3(4)(e) of the Act.
(3.)The CCI by its Order dated 06.11.2018, under section 26(2) of the Act, discussed the Information provided by the Appellant/Informant and held:
"13. At the outset, it is highlighted that though the Commission has dealt with few cases in this sector, the allegations in the present case are different from those earlier cases. The present case alleges that Cab Aggregators have used their respective algorithms to facilitate price-fixing between drivers. The Informant has not alleged collusion between the Cab Aggregators i.e. Ola and Uber through their algorithms; rather collusion has been alleged on the part of drivers through the platform of these Cab Aggregators, who purportedly use algorithms to fix prices which the drivers are bound to accept.

xxx xxx xxx

15. In the conventional sense, hub and spoke arrangement refers to exchange of sensitive information between competitors through a third party that facilitates the cartelistic behaviour of such competitors. The same does not seem to apply to the facts of the present case. In case of Cab Aggregators model, the estimation of fare through App is done by the algorithm on the basis of large data sets, popularly referred to as 'big data'. Such algorithm seemingly takes into account personalised information of riders along with other factors e.g. time of the day, traffic situation, special conditions/events, festival, weekday/weekend which all determine the demand-supply situation etc. Resultantly, the algorithmically determined pricing for each rider and each trip tends to be different owing to the interplay of large data sets. Such pricing does not appear to be similar to the 'hub and spoke' arrangement as understood in the traditional competition parlance. A hub and spoke arrangement generally requires the spokes to use a third party platform (hub) for exchange of sensitive information, including information on prices which can facilitate price fixing. For a cartel to operate as a hub and spoke, there needs to be a conspiracy to fix prices, which requires existence of collusion in the first place. In the present case, the drivers may have acceded to the algorithmically determined prices by the platform (Ola/Uber), this cannot be said to be amounting to collusion between the drivers. In the case of ride-sourcing and ride-sharing services, a hub-and-spoke cartel would require an agreement between all drivers to set prices through the platform, or an agreement for the platform to coordinate prices between them. There does not appear to be any such agreement between drivers inter-se to delegate this pricing power to the platform/Cab Aggregators. Thus, the Commission finds no substance in the first allegation raised by the Informant.

xxx xxx xxx

17. ...In case of app-based taxi services, the dynamic pricing can and does on many occasions drive the prices to levels much lower than the fares that would have been charged by independent taxi drivers. Thus, there does not seem to be any fixed floor price that is set and maintained by the aggregators for all drivers and the centralized pricing mechanism cannot be viewed as a vertical instrument employed to orchestrate price-fixing cartel amongst the drivers...

xxx xxx xxx

18. Based on the foregoing discussion, the allegations raised by the Informant with regard to price fixing under section 3(3)(a) read with section 3(1), resale price maintenance agreement under section 3(4)(e) read with section 3(1). Moreover, the Commission observes that existence of an agreement, understanding or arrangement, demonstrating/indicating meeting of minds, is a sine qua non for establishing a contravention under Section 3 of the Act. In the present case neither there appears to be any such agreement or meeting of minds between the Cab Aggregators and their respective drivers nor between the drivers inter-se. In result thereof, no contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act appears to be made out given the facts of the present case.

19. Further, the allegation as regards price discrimination also seems to be misplaced and unsupported by any evidence on record. Price discrimination can perhaps be scrutinised under Section 4 of the Act, which has not been alleged by the Informant. Imposition of discriminatory price is prohibited under Section 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act only when indulged in by a dominant enterprise. It is not the Informant's case that any of the OPs is dominant in the app-based taxi services market. Given this, the Commission does not find it appropriate to delve into such analysis given that the market in question features two players, Ola as well as Uber, none of which is alleged to be dominant. Further, the provisions of the Act clearly stipulate dominant position by only one enterprise or one group and does not recognise collective dominance. This position was amply made clear in Case Nos. 6 and 74 of 2015 and later reiterated in Case Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 of 2017, both matters pertaining to the Cab Aggregators market. Thus, given these facts and legal position, the Commission rejects the allegation of the Informant with regard to price discrimination.

20. ...The situation of cement manufacturers colluding through a trade association is different from an App providing taxi/cab services. If drivers were colluding using an App as a platform, the said arrangement would have amounted to cartelisation; however, this cannot be equated with the facts of the present cases as demanded by the Informant. Ola and Uber are not an association of drivers, rather they act as separate entities from their respective drivers. In the present situation, a rider books his/her ride at any given time which is accepted by an anonymous driver available in the area, and there is no opportunity for such driver to coordinate its action with other drivers. This cannot be termed as a cartel activity/conduct through Ola/Uber's platform. Thus, the present case is different from the Cement case, not only with regard to adoption of digital App but also with regard to other relevant aspects as elucidated hereinbefore.

xxx xxx xxx

23. Based on the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 has been made out and the matter is accordingly closed herewith under Section 26(2) of the Act."


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.