Singapore’s competition watchdog, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), revealed on Monday that it had initiated an inquiry into the collapsed discussions between Grab Holdings and Delivery Hero, expressing concerns over potential ramifications for competition within the food delivery sector.
Reports from September had indicated that Germany’s Delivery Hero was exploring options to offload its foodpanda business in select Southeast Asian markets, with Singapore-based Grab emerging as a potential suitor, according to Reuters.
The investigation by the CCCS commenced in early January, prompted by fears that a merger or acquisition between Grab and Delivery Hero’s foodpanda could further consolidate control over Singapore’s lucrative food delivery market. A report by research firm Momentum Works suggested that Grab and foodpanda collectively held a commanding 91% share of the $2.5 billion market, with Grab alone claiming 63%.
Related: Abandoned Grab-Delivery Hero Deal Got Attention of Singapore Regulator
However, the regulatory scrutiny came to an end on Feb. 23, following Delivery Hero’s decision to abandon plans for a potential sale and Grab’s assertion that it was no longer pursuing any such deal, as reported by Reuters. Media accounts indicate that the talks between the two companies collapsed in early February.
The CCCS’s intervention underscores the growing regulatory focus on competition within the tech-driven food delivery industry. As platforms like Grab and foodpanda continue to dominate markets globally, regulators are increasingly vigilant about preventing monopolistic practices that could stifle innovation and limit consumer choice.
While the failed negotiations have alleviated immediate concerns about market consolidation, the incident has drawn attention to the need for ongoing scrutiny and regulation in the rapidly evolving food delivery landscape.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand