A Small mistake

The Herald reports:

Commerce Commission chairman John Small has defended social media posts in which he called for consumers to reconsider using Uber and instead recommended rival rideshare services.

The commission regulates competition and fair trading laws in New Zealand and ensures businesses comply with the Commerce Act, which prohibits anti-competitive behaviour.

Small caused a stir on LinkedIn this week when he took to the platform to post “If you’re using Uber in NZ, please reconsider”.

Small’s post continued: “Bolt and DiDi work in exactly the same way as Uber. They are app-based ride-hailing services, set up to compete against Uber. They’ve been able to enter the market because drivers can “multi-home” by running several ride-hailing apps at once. 

“The guy who took us across town today on Bolt runs all three apps, so he can be booked through any of these channels. I gather that most ride-hailing drivers are multi-homing across all these three apps.

Many weighed in with their opinions on Uber’s service, but a few also questioned whether Small should be dissuading people from using Uber and encouraging them to try its rivals.

“Strange that an independent chairman would punt one business over another,” commented Warren Van Rooyen, a general counsel currently working as Foodstuffs North Island’s regulatory compliance lead, who later told the Herald he was posting in a personal capacity.

“Exactly my initial reaction,” replied University of Otago emeritus Law Professor Rex Ahdar.

I think the substance of the post was fine. Informing people of how the market works, and how you can support competition is not inappropriate for the Commerce Commission Chair.

However his exact wording was unwise. He said:

If you’re using Uber in NZ, please reconsider.

That goes from sharing information, to advocacy against a particular company. As a regulator chair, you can’t be seen to be advocating against a particular company.

If he has said “If you’re a rideshare user, you may want to look at these less known options as they are likely to have access to just as many drivers, but charge lower fees to their drivers” then that would be fine.

So the intent was good, but the exact wording was not appropriate, in my opinion.