You can read our Notice of Appeal here.

After seeking extensive expert opinion, and careful consideration, Uber has decided to appeal the 24 September Infringement Decision of the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) with the Competition Appeal Board.

We make this appeal independently of Grab, as a matter of principle. Our objective is not to challenge the remedies of the decision, which are in fact almost identical to the commitments that Uber and Grab voluntarily offered to the CCCS. Rather, we aim to clarify that the conclusion that our transaction with Grab led to a substantial lessening of competition, and that Uber intentionally breached the law, is unsupported and incorrect.

Our appeal is based on the following grounds:

Overly narrow market definition
The very narrow market definition used by the CCCS fails to consider the realities of market conditions. Despite overwhelming evidence, including a market survey, the CCCS concluded, for instance, that consumers do not consider hailing a taxi on the street as a substitute to e-hailing a Grab ride. All point-to-point or on-demand transportation should be considered when defining the ecosystem in which we operate.

Artificially high barriers to entry
The decision concluded that barriers to entry are high and that Go-Jek’s entry into the Singapore market is “not confirmed”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This includes a statement by Go-Jek a few days before the decision that its plans to expand to Singapore are “on track”, in addition to the ongoing activities of Ryde and the wider taxi industry. We respectfully submit that the CCCS cannot disregard these facts.

Respecting the law, and the spirit of the law
We dispute the suggestion that Uber knew the transaction infringed the Competition Act but nevertheless moved ahead. To the contrary, our view has always been that in a properly defined market—including at the very least ridesharing, street-hail taxis and new entrants—the transaction respects the law and does not raise significant concerns. That being said, Uber and Grab proposed extensive voluntary commitments to address the CCCS’ concerns, and were prepared to finalize them. Nevertheless, the CCCS ultimately declined to accept the voluntary commitments and proceeded to issue directions which were substantially similar to the commitments offered.

We remain committed to working with all relevant parties to find an appropriate resolution which demonstrates our respect for the Government and the rule of law, while also respecting the need of businesses for more predictability in application of the antitrust laws.

Please see a summary of our appeal here.