ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd

Last updated

ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court Federal Court of Australia
Full case nameAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission v Cabcharge Australia Ltd
Decided17 November 2010
Citation(s) [2010] FCA 1261
Case history
Subsequent action(s)ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 837
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Finkelstein J

ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd is a 2010 decision of the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Cabcharge. [1] In June 2009, the ACCC began proceedings in the Federal Court against Cabcharge alleging that it had breached section 46 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act (TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged predatory pricing by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in refusing to deal with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through EFTPOS terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taxi meters and fare updates at below actual cost or at no cost. [1]

Contents

In September 2010, to settle the action, Cabcharge admitted a number of contraventions of TPA and the Federal Court imposed a fine of $15 million ($14 million in civil penalties and $1 million in costs), the highest ever penalty imposed for misuse of market power. The judgement was delivered by Justice Raymond Finkelstein on 17 November 2010.

Background

Cabcharge provides various products and services in Australia and overseas, predominantly to taxi drivers, owners and networks (the firms that provide booking and dispatch services to drivers and owners). The services that Cabcharge provide include non-cash payment processing systems for taxi fares, payment processing systems for taxis and provision of taxi meters. The company holds a dominant market position in these services across Australia as it supplies almost 97% of Australian taxis with its electronic payment system.

The ACCC began proceedings in June 2009 in the Federal Court against Cabcharge. The ACCC action alleged that Cabcharge had breached section 46 of the Trade Practices Act (TPA) by misusing its market power and entering into an agreement to substantially lessen competition. The action alleged predatory pricing by Cabcharge and centred on Cabcharge's conduct in refusing to deal with competing suppliers to allow Cabcharge payments to be processed through EFTPOS terminals provided by rival companies and supplying taximeters and meter updates at below actual cost or at no cost. [1]

At the relevant date, to breach Section 46 of the TPA, a corporation must have misused its substantial market power to:

Section 46 of the TPA was amended numerous times since September 2007 to strengthen the ACCC's ability to successfully bring proceedings for alleged contraventions. For example, in September 2007, a sub-section 46(1AA) was introduced into the TPA to prohibit corporations with substantial market share from engaging in predatory pricing. Predatory pricing occurs when a company sets its prices below cost for a sustained period for one of the anti-competitive purposes referred to above. In November 2008, the TPA was amended again to make clear the circumstances when corporations had 'taken advantage' of their market power. This change sought to deal with the evidentiary difficulties the regulator encountered in establishing this element in earlier cases. Since January 2007, the courts have also been given power to impose a civil penalty for each act or omission contravening the TPA. Civil penalties can now be imposed up to the greater of $10 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained from the misconduct, or 10% of the annual Australian turnover of the company involved.

Resolution

Cabcharge admissions

To settle the proceedings, Cabcharge admitted to three contraventions of the TPA. The company agreed to the issue by the court of declarations, compliance orders, civil penalties of $14 million and costs of $1 million. [1]

Cabcharge settlement

On 24 September 2010, Justice Finkelstein approved the settlement of the action and declared that Cabcharge had breached the TPA by taking advantage of its substantial degree of power in the Australian markets for the supply of services to enable non-cash payments for taxi fares and charges by taxi passengers and non-cash instruments that could be used only for the payment of taxi fares and charges.

Judgement

Refusal to deal

It was found that since 2005 Cabcharge had unreasonably refused to deal with a potential competitor (namely Travel Tab which had changed its name to Mpos in January 2007) in the payments and instruments markets by refusing to allow Travel Tab/MPos to process Cabcharge instruments (e.g., Cabcharge cards) on Mpos EFTPOS equipment. It was found that: "With respect to both refusals, Cabcharge acknowledges that although there would have been time and costs involved in developing appropriate interfaces, there was no technical reason that would prevent any electronic taxi-specific payment product from being processed by any EFTPOS terminal as long as that taxi-specific instrument and the relevant EFTPOS terminals complied with all relevant banking/financial industry protocols, including security protocols."

It was found that: "Cabcharge’s refusals were for the purpose of preventing Travel Tab/MPos from processing Cabcharge instruments electronically and resulted in Cabcharge’s payment processing system remaining the only system that processed Cabcharge’s instruments electronically." [1]

Predatory pricing

Between September 2004 and October 2007 Cabcharge acquired taximeters at a cost of $250 per meter. Of these, Cabcharge supplied approximately 727 units free of charge and approximately 5613 units at an invoiced price of $100 (of which it did not obtain any payment for approximately 758 units). At the time its competitors sold meters for between $430–550 plus GST. Cabcharge installed 197 meters free of charge at an estimated cost of $120 to $160 per installation. From 9 November 2007, it sold meters at a retail price of $250.

In addition, Cabcharge supplied meter updates free to networks and operators, notwithstanding that it incurred costs of around $75,000 to supply these updates. At the time its competitors charged $70 to $110 plus GST per update. Cabcharge funded its losses from profits it made from its payment processing systems.

It was found that Cabcharge took advantage of the substantial degree of power it had in the payment processing market for the purposes of: (1) affecting the profitability of other suppliers of meters and updates; (2) ensuring that other suppliers of meters and updates could not match or be price competitive with Cabcharge; and (3) ensuring that alternative suppliers did not commence supplying electronic processing services. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EFTPOS</span> Type of electronic payment system

Electronic funds transfer at point of sale is an electronic payment system involving electronic funds transfers based on the use of payment cards, such as debit or credit cards, at payment terminals located at points of sale. EFTPOS technology was developed during the 1980s.

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. In order to obtain greater profits, some large enterprises take advantage of market power to hinder survival of new entrants. Anti-competitive behavior can undermine the efficiency and fairness of the market, leaving consumers with little choice to obtain a reasonable quality of service.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is the chief competition regulator of the Government of Australia, located within the Department of the Treasury. It was established in 1995 with the amalgamation of the Australian Trade Practices Commission and the Prices Surveillance Authority to administer the Trade Practices Act 1974, which was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 on 1 January 2011. The ACCC's mandate is to protect consumer rights and business rights and obligations, to perform industry regulation and price monitoring, and to prevent illegal anti-competitive behaviour.

Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry. Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.

The Renewables Obligation (RO) is designed to encourage generation of electricity from eligible renewable sources in the United Kingdom. It was introduced in England and Wales and in a different form in Scotland in April 2002 and in Northern Ireland in April 2005, replacing the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation which operated from 1990.

Predatory lending refers to unethical practices conducted by lending organizations during a loan origination process that are unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent. While there are no internationally agreed legal definitions for predatory lending, a 2006 audit report from the office of inspector general of the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) broadly defines predatory lending as "imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers", though "unfair" and "abusive" were not specifically defined. Though there are laws against some of the specific practices commonly identified as predatory, various federal agencies use the phrase as a catch-all term for many specific illegal activities in the loan industry. Predatory lending should not be confused with predatory mortgage servicing which is mortgage practices described by critics as unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices during the loan or mortgage servicing process, post loan origination.

The National Electricity Market (NEM) is an arrangement in Australia's electricity sector for the connection of the electricity transmission grids of the eastern and southern Australia states and territories to create a cross-state wholesale electricity market. The Australian Energy Market Commission develops and maintains the Australian National Electricity Rules (NER), which have the force of law in the states and territories participating in NEM. The Rules are enforced by the Australian Energy Regulator. The day-to-day management of NEM is performed by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

In Economics and Law, exclusive dealing arises when a supplier entails the buyer by placing limitations on the rights of the buyer to choose what, who and where they deal. This is against the law in most countries which include the USA, Australia and Europe when it has a significant impact of substantially lessening the competition in an industry. When the sales outlets are owned by the supplier, exclusive dealing is because of vertical integration, where the outlets are independent exclusive dealing is illegal due to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, however, if it is registered and approved it is allowed. While primarily those agreements imposed by sellers are concerned with the comprehensive literature on exclusive dealing, some exclusive dealing arrangements are imposed by buyers instead of sellers.

<i>Competition and Consumer Act 2010</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. Prior to 1 January 2011, it was known as the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA). The Act is the legislative vehicle for competition law in Australia, and seeks to promote competition, fair trading as well as providing protection for consumers. It is administered by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and also gives some rights for private action. Schedule 2 of the CCA sets out the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Federal Court of Australia has the jurisdiction to determine private and public complaints made in regard to contraventions of the Act.

In United States antitrust law, monopolization is illegal monopoly behavior. The main categories of prohibited behavior include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. Monopolization is a federal crime under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It has a specific legal meaning, which is parallel to the "abuse" of a dominant position in EU competition law, under TFEU article 102. It is also illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). Section 2 of the Sherman Act states that any person "who shall monopolize. .. any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony." Section 2 also forbids "attempts to monopolize" and "conspiracies to monopolize". Generally this means that corporations may not act in ways that have been identified as contrary to precedent cases.

The Cabcharge account payment system was established in 1976 to provide taxi passengers a way to pay for taxi fares by non-cash means. The payment system is owned and operated by A2B Australia, an Australian Securities Exchange listed public company. In the UK and Singapore, Cabcharge is operated by subsidiaries of ComfortDelGro.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxis of Australia</span> Transport vehicles for hire

Taxis in Australia are highly regulated by each Australian state and territory, with each state and territory having its own history and structure. In December 2014, there were 21,344 taxis in Australia. Taxis in Australia are required to be licensed and are typically required to operate and charge on a fitted taximeter. Taxi fare rates are set by State or Territory governments. A vehicle without a meter is generally not considered to be a taxi, and may be described, for example, as a hire car, limousine, carpool, etc. Most taxis today are fueled by liquid petroleum gas. A2B Australia owns and operates the Cabcharge payment system, which covers 98% of taxis in Australia, and operates one of Australia's largest taxi networks.

This is a partial list of notable price fixing and bid rigging cases.

<i>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd</i> 2007 High Court of Australia decision

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

The Australian Consumer Laws (ACL), being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, is uniform legislation for consumer protection, applying as a law of the Commonwealth of Australia and is incorporated into the law of each of Australia's states and territories. The law commenced on 1 January 2011, replacing 20 different consumer laws across the Commonwealth and the states and territories, although certain other Acts continue to be in force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxi Industry Inquiry</span>

The Taxi Industry Inquiry or the Fels Inquiry was an inquiry commissioned in 2011 into the taxi industry and taxi services in Victoria, Australia, by the Taxi Services Commission. The inquiry was headed by Professor Allan Fels assisted by Dr David Cousins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surcharge (payment systems)</span>

A surcharge, also known as checkout fee, is an extra fee charged by a merchant when receiving a payment by cheque, credit card, charge card or debit card which at least covers the cost to the merchant of accepting that means of payment, such as the merchant service fee imposed by a credit card company. Retailers generally incur higher costs when consumers choose to pay by credit card due to higher merchant service fees compared to traditional payment methods such as cash.

Baiada Poultry is a privately owned company that produces poultry products throughout Australia. Its operations include broiler and breeder farms, hatcheries, processing plants, feedmilling and protein recovery. Its head office is at Pendle Hill, New South Wales with plants in Beresfield, Tamworth, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. According to the company, it employs approximately 2,200 people. Baiada is one of Australia's largest poultry processing companies with a market share of more than 20%, producing the Lilydale Select and Steggles brand to retailers including Coles, Woolworths, IGA, Aldi, McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, Red Rooster, Nando's and Subway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">A2B Australia</span> Australian public company

A2B Australia is an Australian public company which was listed on the Australian Securities Exchange in December 1999 and is an ASX 200 company. The company was founded by Reg Kermode. In 1976, the company established Cabcharge, an account payment system to provide a way to pay for taxi fares by non-cash means, which today is the sole provider of the in-taxi service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Live group</span>

Live group Pty Limited is a payment service provider, accredited by Mastercard. Originally established by Macquarie Bank in 2006 as Live Payments, the company was privatised in 2008 and restructured as Live group.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1261 , Federal Court (Australia); ACCC v Cabcharge Australia Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 837 , Federal Court (Australia). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .