The challenge for our national competition authority and the competition authorities of all other Southeast Asian jurisdictions affected by the agreement (most of which have similar competition laws prohibiting anti-competitive agreements) is to provide a robust response to this courageous and somewhat obvious attempt to eliminate competition in the private vehicle market under the obligation to drive. This is the opinion of an Uber driver in Singapore who wrote on his blog that many drivers who want to earn less with Grab still hope for a “miracle” that Uber sees stay. In addition to this concern, TechCrunch reported this week that Go-Jek had held discussions with Singapore`s largest taxi company, ComfortDelGro, to become the company`s Ride-hailing partner. Comfort had already reached an agreement with Uber. To minimize disruption, Grab and Uber are joining forces to migrate Uber drivers and drivers, Uber Eats customers, business partners and supplier partners to the Grab platform in a timely manner. The Uber app will continue to work for two weeks to ensure stability for Uber drivers who can figure out how to sign up to connect to the grave online [www.grab.com/sg/comingtogether]. Uber Eats runs until the end of May, after which Uber`s delivery and restaurant partners will move to the GrabFood platform. Section 34 of the Competition Act prohibits agreements with the purpose or effect of preventing competition. This ban would involve agreements between competitors who are divided between them, whether on a 50 to 50 per cent basis or between 100 and 0%. Market-sharing agreements are essentially agreements between competitors that do not compete in each other`s “designated” areas. They are explicitly cited in the Commission`s guidelines as examples of models of anti-competitive agreements.
Uber might assume it has agreed not to compete with Grab in Southeast Asia, while Grab can be interpreted as being willing to stay out of other markets where Uber continues to operate.  Uber had entered into a collaboration agreement with ComfortDelGro with the launch of UberFlash to compete with Grab, and the cooperation was not withdrawn until after the May 25, 2018 transaction.  Existing exclusive contracts may be maintained for the remaining term of these contracts or six (6) months, depending on the shortest date, but drivers with existing exclusive contracts may at any time terminate contracts without penalty. While many have described the Grab-Uber agreement as a “merger” between these market players, a closer look at the non-factual details that have developed may indicate that this may not be the most accurate way to understand the nature of the transaction and that it could be better understood as a market-sharing agreement. I hate how typing can`t provide enough cars to all our commuters. BRING UBER BACK! Wtf grab this trip is usually 60b, even with the surge price, it`s not cool. I think they lied when they said it would cost less if Uber left. pic.twitter.com/9aaXlAIyIq Could it be more appropriate to view the Grab-Uber agreement as a market-sharing agreement and not as a merger? Should the deal essentially be seen as a “payment” from Uber for Uber`s exit from the Singapore market, with a significant share in the De Grab business? In Europe, pharmaceutical companies that manufacture branded pharmaceutical products have been fined heavily by competition authorities for entering into agreements with generic drug manufacturers to keep them out of the market. The proceedings against Lundbeck and Servier, the Danish and French drug manufacturers, illustrate these so-called “pay for delay” agreements, in which one party essentially agrees to compensate the other for non-competition in the market, which would allow the former to maintain their dominant position and demand higher prices than it could have done if it had to face competition.