Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.





Login
Twitter LinkedIn




Login
  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
Forward Share Print
Vellani & Vellani

Competition Commission initiates Phase II review of Uber's acquisition of Careem

Newsletters

29 August 2019

Competition & Antitrust Pakistan


The Competition Act 2010 prohibits undertakings from entering into a merger which will substantially reduce competition by creating or strengthening a dominant position in the relevant market.

Further, the Competition Commission requires undertakings to apply for pre-merger clearance of an intended merger where they intend to acquire the shares or assets of another undertaking or where two or more undertakings intend to merge the whole or part of their businesses and the pre-merger thresholds specified by the commission are met.

The Competition Commission recently decided on a joint pre-merger application by Uber Technologies, Inc and Careem Inc, notifying the commission of Uber's acquisition of Careem through Uber's subsidiary Augusta Acquisition BV.

The applicants considered the ridesharing services market to be the relevant product market and Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Hyderabad, Multan and Peshawar to be the relevant geographic markets. They claimed that ridesharing services are part of the broader local, urban transport market, which covers all means of transporting people (eg, rickshaws, taxis, buses and minibuses). As such, the applicants' claimed that their combined market share in the overall urban transport market would not result in a dominant position.

The Competition Commission disagreed with the applicants' view, observing as follows:

  • Ridesharing – by reason of its characteristics, prices and intended usage – is not interchangeable or substitutable with the mode of transport referred to by the applicants. Customers of Uber and Careem rely on mobile apps or the Internet to summon matched drivers to their location, whereas with other modes of transport, customers usually have to hail them or wait at designated locations.
  • Uber and Careem provide different packages according to the quality of the transport being hailed (eg, air conditioned, economy and executive), whereas other modes of transport do not provide a choice of services.
  • Uber and Careem offer promotions and discounts, while other modes of transport do not.
  • Ridesharing services are distinct from all other modes of transport referred to by the applicants; therefore, the relevant product market should be limited to ridesharing services.

The Competition Commission concluded that based on its assessment of the relevant market, the proposed merger was likely to substantially weaken competition through the creation or strengthening of a dominant position in the relevant market. Thus, the commission initiated a Phase II review.

For further information on this topic please contact Sanaya F Vachha at Vellani & Vellani by telephone (+92 21 3580 1000) or email (sanaya.vachha@vellani.com). The Vellani & Vellani website can be accessed at www.vellani.com.

The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.

ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.

Forward Share Print

Author

Sanaya F Vachha

Sanaya F Vachha

Register now for your free newsletter

View recent newsletter

More from this firm

  • Generic trademarks and deceptive marketing practices: Competition Commission rejects genericism defence
  • Competition Commission adopts measures amid COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate filings and hearings
  • Food for thought: Engro Foods investigated for deceptive marketing practices
  • Penalty imposed on electric cable manufacturers for non-disclosure of material information
  • Competition Commission sets aside show cause notice

More articles

  • Home
  • About
  • Updates
  • Awards
  • Contact
  • My account
  • Directory
  • OnDemand
  • Partners
  • Testimonials
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Follow on LinkedIn
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Terms
  • Cookie policy
Online Media Partners
Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) International Bar Association (IBA) European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) American Bar Association Section of International Law (ABA)

© 1997-2021 Law Business Research

You need to be logged in to make a comment. Log in here.
Many thanks. Your comment has been sent.

Your details



Your comment or question *