In the Philippines, if Grab Car or any other ride-hailing service violates unfair

competition laws and adversely affects an existing taxi operator, the affected
party may consider filing the following legal actions:

1. Unfair Competition: The affected taxi operator can file a lawsuit

against Grab Car under the provisions of the Philippine Competition Act
or other applicable laws governing unfair competition. Unfair
competition generally refers to any deceptive, unfair, or fraudulent
business practices that harm the business interests of another. The
affected party would need to demonstrate that Grab Car engaged in
anti-competitive behavior, such as predatory pricing, exclusive
dealing, or abuse of dominant market position, leading to the harm
suffered.

2. Anti-Discrimination Laws: The affected taxi operator could also explore

legal recourse under anti-discrimination laws. If Grab Car is found to
discriminate against or unfairly target the taxi operator through its
business practices, such as refusing to accept passengers hailing a taxi
or engaging in discriminatory pricing, a lawsuit can be filed based on
these grounds.

3. Breach of Licensing Requirements: If Grab Car is found to be operating

in violation of licensing requirements or regulations specific to the ride-
hailing industry in the Philippines, the affected taxi operator can file a
complaint or legal action to address this breach. This might involve
showing that Grab Car does not comply with the necessary permits,
licenses, or operating conditions set by the relevant regulatory
authorities.

4. Tortious Interference: If the taxi operator can demonstrate that Grab

Car intentionally interfered with their contractual or business
relationships, such as by enticing drivers away or engaging in
aggressive business practices that directly harm the taxi operator's
business, a lawsuit for tortious interference may be an option.

It is important to note that the specific legal actions available may depend
on the particular circumstances and the applicable laws in the Philippines.
Consulting with a qualified attorney who specializes in competition law or
business litigation would be advisable to assess the viability of the case and
navigate the legal process effectively.
The Philippine Competition Act (Republic Act No. 10667) aims to promote
and protect competition in the market and prevent anti-competitive
practices. The act identifies several violations and anti-competitive behaviors
that are prohibited. Here are some key violations outlined in the Philippine
Competition Act:

1. Anti-Competitive Agreements: The act prohibits agreements between

or among competitors that have the purpose, effect, or tendency to
substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition. This includes
agreements to fix prices, allocate markets, or rig bids.

2. Abuse of Dominant Position: The act prohibits entities with substantial

market power from engaging in conduct that substantially prevents,
restricts, or lessens competition. This includes practices such as
imposing unfair terms or conditions, predatory pricing, and engaging in
anti-competitive tying arrangements.

3. Mergers and Acquisitions that Substantially Lessen Competition: The

act prohibits mergers, acquisitions, or combinations that substantially
prevent, restrict, or lessen competition in the relevant market.
Transactions that may result in a substantial lessening of competition
require notification to the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) for
review and clearance.

4. Bid Rigging and Collusive Practices: The act prohibits bid rigging,
which involves collusion among competitors to manipulate the bidding
process to their advantage. It also prohibits other collusive practices
that harm competition, such as market division or output limitation.

5. Price Manipulation and Unfair Trade Practices: The act prohibits

entities from manipulating prices or engaging in unfair trade practices
that distort competition, such as deceptive advertising, false
representation of products or services, or unfair methods of
competition.

6. Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights: While intellectual property rights

are generally protected, the act prohibits the abuse of these rights to
unreasonably prevent, restrict, or lessen competition.
 7. Failure to Comply with PCC Orders or Requirements: Non-compliance
with orders, decisions, or requirements of the Philippine Competition
Commission can be considered a violation of the act.

It's important to note that the Philippine Competition Act provides more
detailed provisions and guidelines regarding these violations and the process
for investigation and enforcement. The Philippine Competition Commission
(PCC) is the primary enforcement agency responsible for investigating and
addressing anti-competitive behavior. If you believe there has been a
violation of the Philippine Competition Act, it is advisable to consult with
legal counsel or reach out to the PCC for guidance and filing a complaint.

The Public Service Act of the Philippines (Commonwealth Act No. 146)
regulates public services in the country and sets forth provisions to protect
the public interest. Violations of the Public Service Act can result in legal
consequences. Here are some key violations under the Act:

1. Operating without a Franchise: Under the Public Service Act, public

service entities, such as those engaged in transportation,
communication, and utilities, must obtain a franchise from the
government. Operating without a valid franchise is a violation of the
Act.

2. Violation of Franchise Terms and Conditions: Public service entities

must comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in their
franchise. Any violation of these terms, such as failure to provide
adequate services or failure to meet safety requirements, may
constitute a violation of the Public Service Act.

3. Anti-Competitive Practices: The Public Service Act prohibits anti-

competitive practices by public service entities. This includes engaging
in unfair competition, monopolistic behavior, or abusing a dominant
market position to the detriment of competition and consumers.

4. Failure to Comply with Regulatory Requirements: Public service

entities are subject to various regulatory requirements imposed by the
government agencies overseeing their respective sectors. Failure to
comply with these requirements, such as safety standards or reporting
obligations, can be considered a violation of the Public Service Act.
 5. Violation of Consumer Rights: Public service entities are required to
uphold consumer rights and provide fair, reasonable, and non-
discriminatory services. Any action that infringes upon consumer
rights, such as unfair pricing practices, inadequate service quality, or
discriminatory treatment, may constitute a violation of the Public
Service Act.

It's important to note that the Public Service Act provides more specific
provisions, requirements, and penalties for violations. The regulatory
agencies overseeing the relevant sectors, such as the Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) or the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC), are responsible for enforcing the
Act. If you believe there has been a violation of the Public Service Act, it is
advisable to consult with legal counsel or report the violation to the relevant
regulatory agency for further action.

As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, Grab, a ride-hailing service,

operates in various countries and offers different types of services, including
GrabCar and GrabTaxi. Grab's pricing structure and discount policies may
vary based on the specific country or region where it operates and the terms
and conditions set by Grab itself. However, it is important to note that Grab
has the discretion to adjust prices and provide discounts based on factors
such as demand, distance, time, and other relevant considerations.

Grab often utilizes dynamic pricing, which means that fares can fluctuate
based on factors like high demand during peak hours or in busy areas.
During periods of high demand, such as rush hour or in crowded events, the
fares may increase due to surge pricing. This surge pricing helps incentivize
more drivers to be available during peak times and to meet the increased
demand.

Grab also offers various promotional campaigns and discounts, which can be
targeted to specific users or available to all customers. These promotions
may be advertised through the Grab app or through other marketing
channels. The terms and conditions for these promotions, including any
limitations or restrictions, are typically outlined by Grab.

It is important for passengers to review the fare estimate or the final fare
displayed on the Grab app before confirming a ride. This will provide
transparency regarding the pricing for the specific ride at that particular
time.

Please note that pricing structures, discount policies, and other operational
details of Grab may have changed since September 2021. For the most up-
to-date information, I recommend visiting Grab's official website or
contacting their customer support directly.

Potential cases that could be filed against GrabTaxi may include:

1. Labor-related cases: These could involve allegations of

misclassification of drivers as independent contractors instead of
employees, wage and hour violations, or denial of benefits.

2. Antitrust or competition cases: These could involve claims of anti-

competitive practices, such as price-fixing, market dominance, or
unfair competition.

3. Consumer protection cases: These could involve claims of misleading

advertising, unfair pricing practices, or inadequate safety measures.

4. Regulatory compliance cases: These could involve allegations of non-

compliance with transportation regulations, licensing requirements, or
failure to meet safety standards.

It's important to note that the specific cases filed against GrabTaxi would
depend on the applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction where the
case is filed. It is advisable to consult legal resources, news sources, or
reach out to legal professionals for the most up-to-date information on any
cases or legal actions involving GrabTaxi.

Vietnam Sun Corp, the operator of the Vinasun taxi brand, sued Grab for
unfair business practices and lost business. The lawsuit ended with a
Vietnam court ordering Grab to pay compensation of 4.8 billion dong
($206,985) to Vietnam Sun Corp

1 https://www.insider.com/r-grab-ordered-to-pay-compensation-
to-vietnamese-taxi-firm-2018-12
2 https://www.pymnts.com/news/ridesharing/2018/grab-vietnam-
taxi-operator-compensation-lost-business/

3 https://kr-asia.com/grab-loses-vietnam-lawsuit-ordered-to-pay-
vinasun-over-200k

4 https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Vietnam-court-orders-Grab-
to-pay-compensation/46216305

Grab was ordered to pay 4.8 billion dong ($206,985) in compensation to a

local taxi operator by a Vietnamese court over lost business

1 https://www.pymnts.com/news/ridesharing/2018/grab-vietnam-taxi-
operator-compensation-lost-business/

2 https://www.reuters.com/article/ctech-us-grab-vinasun-trial-
idCAKCN1OR0I9-OCATC

Vietnam Sun Corp, also known as Vinasun, sued Grab, a ride-hailing

company, for unfair business practices and lost business

. Vinasun sought 41.2 billion dong (around $1.84 million) in compensation

for the losses it incurred due to Grab's business practices

. In its lawsuit, Vinasun alleged that Grab had exploited legal loopholes to
offer "rampant" promotion deals and discounts

5 https://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/from-vinasun-vs-grab-lawsuit-
how-to-change-management-thinking-to-suit-new-business-models-
6564.html
. The court ordered Grab to pay compensation to Vinasun for the lost
business

. Grab argued that if Vinasun wanted compensation, it should file a suit

against the Ministry of Transport instead

4 https://e.vnexpress.net/news/business/top-vietnamese-taxi-
company-sues-grab-for-1-84-mln-in-losses-3708961.html

. An article analyzing the lawsuit pointed out mistakes in Grab's business
and suggested changes in management thinking to suit new business models

5 https://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/from-vinasun-vs-grab-lawsuit-
how-to-change-management-thinking-to-suit-new-business-models-
6564.html

Background:

Vinasun Corporation is a Vietnamese taxi company that filed a lawsuit

against Grab, alleging unfair competition and losses suffered due to Grab's
entry into the Vietnamese ride-hailing market. Vinasun claimed that Grab
engaged in predatory pricing and other anti-competitive practices, which
resulted in substantial financial damage to their business.

Legal Proceedings:

The case went to trial in 2017, and in December 2018, the Ho Chi Minh City
People's Court ruled in favor of Vinasun. The court ordered Grab to pay
Vinasun 4.8 billion Vietnamese dong (approximately USD 206,000) in
compensation for the alleged losses caused by Grab's actions. The court
recognized that Grab's entry into the market had affected Vinasun's business
operations.

Appeal and Ongoing Developments:

Following the initial ruling, both Vinasun and Grab appealed the decision. In
November 2020, the People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City upheld the previous
ruling, stating that Grab had caused damages to Vinasun by engaging in
unfair competition. However, the court reduced the compensation amount to
1.86 billion Vietnamese dong (approximately USD 80,000).

GrabTaxi, a ride-sharing company, has faced several controversies and legal

issues in the Philippines. Here are some of the cases that have been filed
against GrabTaxi:

1. Temporary ban on ridesharing services: In 2015, a Philippine regional

court blocked permission by the transport
department for Uber and GrabCar to operate in Manila

2. Violation of commitments: The Philippine Competition

Commission (PCC) has fined Grab for breaching commitments from its
2018 acquisition of Uber by failing to comply with the conditions set by
the PCC

3. Overcharging customers: Grab was fined P10 million by the Land

Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) for
overcharging customers

4. Merger violations: The PCC fined Grab for causing "undue difficulties"
that prejudiced the review process of their controversial takeover deal
with Uber

5. Doubling rates: Grab was involved in a controversy when a Grab

partner-driver asked a passenger to double his fare for rides reaching
outside of Metro Manila.

In summary, GrabTaxi has faced legal issues related to its operations,

pricing, and merger with Uber. The Philippine Competition Commission has
fined Grab for violating commitments and causing undue difficulties in the
review process of their merger with Uber. The Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board has also fined Grab for overcharging
customers.
The Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) is a government agency
responsible for enforcing the Philippine Competition Act, which aims to
promote and protect competition in the market. The PCC's role is to ensure
that businesses operate in a fair and competitive environment, and to
prevent anti-competitive behavior such as monopolies and cartels. In
relation to Grab Philippines, the PCC has fined the company for breaching
commitments from its 2018 acquisition of Uber and for causing undue
difficulties in the review process of their merger deal. The PCC has also fined
Grab for violating its price and service commitments, and for failing to fully
refund customers. Additionally, a transport advocate has urged the PCC to
intervene as Grab pushes to monopolize the transport sector