South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has levied a hefty fine of 72.4 billion won (US$54.8 million) on Kakao Mobility, a leading ride-hailing company, for stifling competition in the market, according to Tech Asia. This move is part of the KFTC’s broader crackdown on monopolistic business practices in the country.
The regulatory body also announced plans to pursue criminal charges against the company, a decision that could lead to further legal consequences for Kakao Mobility.
Per a Tech Asia report, the investigation revealed that Kakao Mobility actively obstructed the operations of competing taxi platforms such as Banban, Macaron, UT, and Tada. The company reportedly pressured these operators to either pay fees or enter into agreements to share real-time operational data. When these companies refused, Kakao allegedly retaliated by threatening to block their drivers from using its primary ride-hailing app, Kakao T.
Kakao Mobility’s influence in South Korea’s taxi franchise market has grown significantly, with its market share climbing from 51% in 2020 to 79% in 2022. This dramatic expansion triggered concerns about potential monopolistic behavior, prompting the KFTC’s investigation.
The recent fine and looming criminal charges highlight growing regulatory scrutiny over Kakao Mobility’s business practices. South Korea’s government appears determined to maintain a competitive landscape in its rapidly evolving ride-hailing industry, ensuring fair opportunities for all players.
Source: Tech in Asia
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh