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

7 of 10 Filipinos worried by presence of Chinese workers

China has increased its presence in the archipelago. The rising presence of Chinese workers in the country worry seven out of 10 adult Filipinos, according to the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, as the government recently launched a crackdown against Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogos) which mostly employ Chinese nationals. The noncommissioned survey, conducted from Sept. 27 to 30, found that 31 percent “worried a great deal,” while 39 percent are “somewhat worried.” Highest in Metro Manila The proportion of those who were worried about the increasing number of Chinese workers in the country was highest in Metro Manila at 75 percent, followed by the Visayas at 71 percent, Luzon outside Metro Manila (69 percent) and Mindanao (67 percent.) About half of the respondents agree that the rising number of Chinese workers is a threat to national secur


By Philippine Daily Inquirer
December 6, 2019

Economics, Opinion

Pakistan to launch Digital Pakistan Vision

Imran hopes to unleash ‘potential of youth and women’ with new venture. Prime Minister Imran Khan on Thursday said that with the introduction of the ‘Digital Pakistan Vision’, the full potential of the contribution of youth and the women to the economy will be unleashed. According to a press release from the Prime Minister Office: “The Vision sets Pakistan’s digital ambition and has been designed for the government and the private sector to work towards a digitally progressive and inclusive Pakistan.” Speaking at the launch ceremony of the initiative, the prime minister regretted not having launched it at the very beginning when his government was formed. “I should have given attention to Digital Pakistan earlier. This is the most important thing for Pakistan right now, especially its youth. The whole world is moving forward digitally and we have been l


By Dawn
December 6, 2019

Economics, Opinion

Thailand looks to become LNG hub

Energy Minister Sontirat Songtijirawong declared at a conference. The Energy Policy Administration Committee today (December 4) acknowledged the guidelines for turning Thailand into the regional trading hub of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The guidelines came about from a study assigned by the government-appointed energy reform committee to PTT. Energy Minister Sontirat Songtijirawong said that the move was estimated to generate Bt165 billion for Thailand’s economy between 2020 and 2030. The country is expected to start full commercial trading late next year or early in 2021. Thailand has potential to become the regional hub due to its high demand of LNG and its geographical location as the centre of countries with high LNG demand, namely China, India, Japan, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Moreover, Thailand has a supportive infrastructure to serve regional LNG tradi


By The Nation (Thailand)
December 5, 2019

Economics, Opinion

No safe spaces for women in Pakistan

Rafia Zakaria writes for Dawn. THAT crime lurks in the streets and corners of Karachi is not news for anyone. Precariousness and predation are the mainstay in this southern corner of the land of the pure; if you have something you are hunted and if you have nothing, you hunt. Destiny damns both, the hunters and the hunted, enacting a dystopian version of The Walking Dead, every day and every night. Karachi is, after all, judged as one of the world’s cities that are least liveable. The scars of it all are visible everywhere, on the bodies and faces of its people, on the hospitals that do not care, and the police that do not protect. This time, the dark forces that breed within the city came for a young girl. According to news reports, 20-year-old Dua Nisar Mangi was ‘committing the crime’ of walking down a city street. This was over the weekend past, and with her was a friend named Haris. It was not suppo


By Dawn
December 5, 2019

Economics, Opinion

S. Korean negotiator hopes for ‘win-win’ burden-sharing deal with US

Trump has accused Korea of not paying its fair share of defense costs. South Korea’s top negotiator in defense cost-sharing talks with the United States said Monday that he believes the two sides will be able to strike a “win-win” deal based on their common understanding of the bilateral alliance. Jeong Eun-bo, the top envoy to the Special Measures Agreement negotiations, made the comment upon arriving at Washington’s Dulles International Airport ahead of the fourth round of talks slated for Tuesday and Wednesday. The previous round of talks in Seoul last month was cut short, publicly displaying the rift between the allies over how to share the costs for the stationing of 28,500 American troops in South Korea.


By The Korea Herald
December 3, 2019

Economics, Opinion

BioThai strikes back after delay to chemicals ban

The ban has been opposed by the United States. After delay to the ban of agricultural chemicals was announced, BioThai Foundation, a strong supporter of the ban, released an analysis report titled “36 days to cancel glyphosate ban” which identified the four factors behind the postponement. The delay was not totally unexpected. A ban was imposed on paraquat from 2005-2007 in Malaysia before multinational chemical companies teamed up with the country’s palm-rubber industry to successfully pressure the government to lift it. However, this time round, the Malaysian government was not able to resist the pressure from within the country and abroad. It will restart the ban on January 1, 2020. The Sri Lankan government announced a ban on glyphosate for all crops in 2015, it then limited use of the chemical to rubber and tea in mid-2018 after a campaign by giant che


By The Nation (Thailand)
November 29, 2019