See More on Facebook

Economics, Opinion

Grab-Uber deal: Merger or market-sharing agreement?

The Grab-Uber merger has implications for competition law and long-term commuting behaviour, and deserve careful scrutiny.


Written by

Updated: April 16, 2018

Now that the Grab-Uber deal is being carefully scrutinised by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore, there is immense public interest in whether, realistically, anything can be done to prevent the market from being monopolised by the reduction in the number of private vehicle ride-hailing service providers from two to one.

This may well depend on how the competition authority chooses to characterise the conduct of the parties, raising interesting legal and policy questions about the intersection between Sections 34 and 54 of the Competition Act.

While many may have described the Grab-Uber deal as a “merger” between these market players, closer scrutiny of the factual details that have emerged may suggest that this may not the most accurate way of understanding the nature of this transaction and that it might be better understood as a market-sharing agreement.

Section 54 of the Competition Act prohibits mergers that have resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market in Singapore.

Mergers are defined in the Act as occurring when two previously independent undertakings become one single undertaking; when one undertaking acquires direct or indirect control over another undertaking; or when an undertaking acquires ownership of another undertaking’s assets, thereby placing the former in a position to replace the latter in the business that the latter was engaged in before the acquisition.

In the case of the Grab-Uber deal, what exactly does Grab acquire from Uber in exchange for 27.5 per cent of Grab’s shares? The transaction has been described by industry watchers as “asset light” because the deal does not entail Grab’s acquisition of Uber’s vehicles, which are owned by Uber’s Lion City Rentals.

Neither does it cover Uber’s employees or contracts with Uber drivers. It may or may not cover any of Uber’s algorithms – but this is unlikely, given that such trade secrets are of immense strategic value in the other markets outside South-east Asia where Uber will continue to operate.

It may include Uber’s customer data, but the value of this asset is not going to be very significant if we assume that most of Uber’s customers have already installed Grab’s application on their mobile devices, submitting their phone numbers and other personal data through their interactions with Grab. There is no merger of the Uber and Grab mobile apps, and it appears that Grab does not get any rights to use any of the intellectual property rights protecting the Uber brand. Uber simply vanishes from the market.

In the light of the above, even if this were a “merger” that the competition authority was prepared to block for violating the Section 54 prohibition, the remaining market player would continue to reap the economic benefits of the absence of its only serious market rival in the “post-merger” market.

Short of compelling Uber to re-enter the market and resurrect its business operations, it would appear that unwinding this “merger” would do little to rectify the anti-competitive effects of this transaction. New market entrants might try to enter the market, but it seems highly unlikely that they will be in a position to offer a serious competitive challenge to Grab. Any aspiring market entrant would have to be prepared to burn heaps of cash to get drivers and passengers to switch service providers. The relatively small size of the Singapore market, the availability of reliable public transport options and the extensive land transport regulatory framework should make potential competitors think thrice before going up against the incredibly well-funded and well-established Grab.

Might it be more accurate to regard the Grab-Uber deal as a market-sharing agreement instead of a merger? In essence, should the deal be regarded, instead, as Grab “paying” for Uber’s exit from the Singapore market with a substantial stake in Grab’s business?

If so, then the competition authority has an additional legislative tool at its disposal to tackle the competition problems arising from the transaction.

Section 34 of the Competition Act prohibits agreements that have as their object or effect the prevention of competition. This prohibition would include agreements between competitors to divide up markets between themselves – whether on a 50 per cent to 50 per cent basis or a 100 per cent to 0 per cent basis. Market-sharing agreements are, in essence, agreements between competitors not to compete in each other’s “designated” territories. They are specifically identified in the commission’s guidelines as paradigm examples of anti-competitive agreements. Uber may be construed to have agreed not to compete with Grab in South-east Asia, while Grab may be construed to have agreed to stay out of other markets where Uber continues to operate in.

In Europe, pharmaceutical companies which manufacture brand-name versions of medicines have had heavy fines imposed upon them by competition authorities for striking deals with generic drug manufacturers to keep the latter out of the market. The proceedings that have been brought against Lundbeck and Servier, drug makers from Denmark and France, respectively, are illustrative of these so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements, where one party essentially agrees to compensate the other for not competing in the market, thereby allowing the former to maintain its position of market dominance and charge higher prices than it would have been able to if it had to face competition. Similarly, paying off one’s competitor to exit the market might also be regarded as an anti-competitive agreement that attracts similar legal sanctions.

In Singapore, the competition authority has had plenty of experience levying fines on competitors that have engaged in price-fixing, bid-rigging, the sharing of sensitive price information as well as collusion with each other against a common rival to achieve their anti-competitive objectives. Perhaps the time has come to add a decision on market-sharing conduct to its repertoire?

It is submitted that a substance-over-form approach should be taken when evaluating the conduct of the parties in the Grab-Uber deal. That the parties failed to notify the competition authority of their “merger” before the deal was closed and implemented raises many questions about their underlying strategic motivations.

The challenge for our national competition authority and the competition authorities of all the other South-east Asian jurisdictions affected by the deal (most of which also have similar competition laws prohibiting anti-competitive agreements) is to provide a robust response to this bold, and slightly obvious, attempt to eliminate competition in the private vehicle ride-hailing market.

(Burton Ong is Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.)



Enjoyed this story? Share it.


About the Author: The Straits Times is Singapore's top-selling newspaper.

Eastern Briefings

All you need to know about Asia


Our Eastern Briefings Newsletter presents curated stories from 22 Asian newspapers from South, Southeast and Northeast Asia.

Sign up and stay updated with the latest news.



By providing us with your email address, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

View Today's Newsletter Here

Economics, Opinion

Pakistan seals financial assistance from UAE

$3 billion financial assistance sealed as Abu Dhabi Crown Prince meets Imran Khan in Islamabad. Pakistani and United Arab Emirates leadership have met thrice now in three months. Prime Minister Imran Khan visited the UAE twice after assuming office in August to seek economic assistance. Both countries last week finalised the terms and conditions of a $6.2 billion support package for Islamabad to help address its balance-of-payments crisis. A joint statement issued after the UAE royal’s visit said Prime Minister Khan thanked the crown prince for the “generous” balance-of-payments support of $3 billion, which appears to have materialised first out of the total financial package. Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, who last visited


By Dawn
January 7, 2019

Economics, Opinion

Previewing Sheikh Hasina’s fourth term

A unanimous poll decision leaves Sheikh Hasina with many decisions to make. It is the huge gaps in the numbers of votes polled by the winners and the losers in the 11th national election that apparently unveiled a “controlled and patterned” nature of the process of polls. A foreign media commentator wondered why any “control” was exercised over BNP activists since the announcement of election schedule in September last. In his opinion, the ruling coalition or Mahajote contestants would have won by a handsome margin without keeping BNP workers at bay anyway! More so when the BNP was waffling and unprepared! In fact, a hundred BNP candidates’ deposits have been forfeited as they couldn’t even secure one-tenth of their adversaries’ tally. In BNP’s last election debacle when they had around 30 seats, deposits of only 10 contestants were forfeited. But I have


By Daily Star
January 4, 2019

Economics, Opinion

AIIB approves applications of six more countries

The total of countries with a membership in the China-led bank now stands at 93. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) announced on Wednesday that its Board of Governors has approved the membership applications of six more countries, bringing AIIB’s total approved members to 93. The new group of approved members is comprised of Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Serbia and Togo. “Within three years, AIIB’s membership has increased from the 57 founders to 93 approved members from almost every continent. This shows our member’s commitment to multilateral cooperation and strengthens AIIB’s role in the international financial community,” said AIIB Vice President and Corporate Secretary Sir Danny Alexander. “The growing membership of the Bank in Europe and Africa also reflects the importance for growth and development of inter-regional connectivity, esp


By China Daily
December 21, 2018

Economics, Opinion

Thailand staggering back towards democracy

With political restrictions eased, confidence is stirring that the people’s voice will be heard again in two months’ time. Thailand appears to be returning to a modicum of political normalcy now that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the ruling junta, has lifted its ban on political activity. The NCPO partially repealed nine of its prior restrictions imposed following the 2014 military coup. It has effectively lifted the ban on political gatherings of five or more people and is allowing parties to organise meetings and other activities of a political nature. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his government had deservedly come under blistering attack from politicians who were gagged for the past four and a half years because of the junta clampdown. Much of the criticism came from politicians linked to self-exiled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted in the 2006 coup and then widely bl


By The Nation (Thailand)
December 20, 2018

Economics, Opinion

Malaysia files criminal charges against Goldman Sachs

Two ex-bankers have also been charged in connection to the 1mdb scandal. Malaysia said on Monday it has filed criminal charges at home against Goldman Sachs and two of the U.S. bank’s former employees in connection with a corruption and money laundering probe at state fund 1MDB. Goldman Sachs has been under scrutiny for its role in helping raise $6.5 billion through three bond offerings for 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which is the subject of investigations in at least six countries. Malaysia’s Attorney General Tommy Thomas said criminal charges under the country’s securities laws were filed on Monday against Goldman Sachs, its former bankers Tim Leissner and Roger Ng, former 1MDB employee Jasmine Loo and financier Jho Low in connection with the bond offerings. “The charges arise from the commission and abatement of false or misleading statements by all the accused in order to dishon


By The Star
December 17, 2018

Economics, Opinion

Indonesia plans to make 30 percent bio-diesel blend mandatory

Studies are ongoing on the correct type of petrol. While the government expanded the mandatory use of a 20 percent biodiesel blend ( B20 ) in September, it plans to further boost domestic biodiesel consumption to absorb more crude palm oil (CPO) amid fluctuation in the global market price of the commodity. Apart from improving the distribution of the B20 blend across to the country, the government is also carrying out research to increase the portion of biodiesel in the fuels rom 20 percent to 30 percent ( B30 ) or even to 100 percent ( B100 ). The Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry’s oil and gas director general, Djoko Siswanto, was quoted by kontan.co.id on Monday as saying that B100 fuel was being tested by the ministry. State-owned oil and gas holding


By The Jakarta Post
December 16, 2018