Latest news with #CompetitionTribunal
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Want a decision from the SA government? Don't hold your breath
There are plenty of cases where the government just takes a long time to make decisions. Even decisions that need to be made by one person can take forever. In some cases, the process is just too technical, with too many steps. And while it can be frustrating, it is also really expensive for our economy. One of the great and terrible certainties about South African life is that you know any kind of government process is just going to take forever. And while it can be frustrating and taxing, in the end it is also hugely expensive for our economy. On Tuesday, 17 June 2025, BusinessLIVE reported on the CEO of Afrimat, who had told shareholders in the annual report that a delay by the Competition Tribunal over its deal with Lafarge SA might have cost the company about R185-million. That's because while the tribunal was considering the case, the equipment, including kilns, fell into disrepair. By the time the tribunal allowed the deal, it was exactly a year since it was first announced. And remember, all the tribunal had to do was consider the recommendations of the Competition Commission — it wasn't as if they were starting the entire case from scratch. Something similar has happened with the Vodacom-Maziv deal, where the two want to work together to roll out fibre. This is something that should greatly benefit our economy. That case took three years before the Competition Tribunal eventually ruled that the merger could not go ahead. And even then, the parties had to wait for months before the final reasons were actually published. Considering how the fibre market has changed in the past three years, this might well have a material impact on whether the deal still has the same value as it did when it was announced. It's easy to pick on the Competition Tribunal. And we should. But there are plenty of other cases where the government just takes a long time to make decisions. In some cases, the process is just too technical, with too many steps. There are also, arguably, too many different forums. For example, Vodacom now has to appeal against the Competition Tribunal ruling in the Competition Appeal Court. It is even possible that if it fails there, it could go to the Constitutional Court. That would mean the whole thing will probably take more than five years. But it is not just our judicial and legal processes that take a long time. Even decisions that need to be made by one person can take forever. Jacob Zuma once took nearly two years just to appoint a new head of the Special Investigating Unit. That was clearly political; he didn't want anyone in the job for reasons that became pretty obvious. But President Cyril Ramaphosa sometimes isn't much better. The head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Shamila Batohi, has asked him to suspend the head of prosecutions in Joburg, Andrew Chauke. He is accused of a litany of sins, including sabotaging prosecutions during the State Capture era. Her request was made nearly two years ago. And Ramaphosa has still not made a decision. Considering that he has claimed to want to support our independent institutions, and the NPA, what could his motive possibly be? Two weeks ago, Police Minister Senzo Mchunu withdrew an advert for a new head of the Hawks, after Godfrey Lebeya retired. The process to find a new head will now start again, meaning they will be without a boss for four months. At least. And I'll bet you the cost of a double ticket to see the Springboks at Ellis Park that it will take longer than that. There are many other examples. Former Department of Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Ebrahim Patel was accused by the current head of the National Lotteries Commission, Professor Barney Pityana, of delaying the appointment of the agents who formally assign money to groups that are supposed to benefit from it. The current Health Minister, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, appeared to take forever to publish regulations around the digital nomad visa when he was at Home Affairs. In the end the new minister, Leon Schreiber, had to do it. And was able to claim something for the DA in the process. I think sometimes when there is a long delay we have to ask who is really responsible. In the case of the Competition Tribunal, it is not just that they make decisions businesspeople don't like. It's that the delay is caused because they don't have enough members. As columnist Michael Avery has pointed out, it appears to be seriously understaffed. By the way, they're not the only ones. Mbekezeli Benjamin from Judges Matter once pointed out that the Electoral Court had been without a full complement of staff for a full five years. That's astonishing, no matter how you look at it. And it's only because of the politicians; they are the ones who are ultimately in charge. When there are delays like this, I think we're entitled to ask why. And this is the risk to the politicians. When Ramaphosa can't make up his mind about Andrew Chauke for two years, it looks like he's defending him, even if he's not. When tribunals and courts are left without their full complement of judges and commissioners, it must make them weaker. But sometimes it can be something else. DM
Vancouver Sun
13-06-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Delivery services under legal scrutiny for alleged 'drip pricing'
The practice known as 'drip pricing' is front and centre again in an action by the federal Competition Bureau against DoorDash and in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by a Toronto law firm against Uber Eats. Drip pricing generally involves enticing customers by advertising low prices, but charging extra mandatory fees, usually when they are checking out. It continues to come under fire because 'disclosure around pricing and fees in various consumer transactions is, at times, less than thorough and transparent,' says Mike Robb, partner with London, Ontario-based law firm, Siskinds. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The Competition Bureau says w hen 'the represented price is inaccurate, it makes it more difficult for consumers to comparison shop and result(s) in unfair outcomes for honest competitors.' Canada's competition watchdog is hauling DoorDash Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary before the Competition Tribunal, accusing them of portraying the online cost of delivery as lower than the price consumers ultimately pay. The Competition Bureau says it investigated and is alleging DoorDash customers paid more, due to mandatory fees, added during checkout. The extra fees, the bureau says, include charges such as extra amounts for delivering items a further distance and for placing smaller orders. The bureau alleges the discretionary charges were sometimes framed as taxes. The bureau alleges DoorDash may have used drip pricing for close to a decade to make nearly $1 billion from mandatory fees, according to the Canadian Press . The bureau is asking the Competition Tribunal to order the company to stop the practice, cease portraying fees as taxes, pay a penalty and issue restitution to affected consumers. However, DoorDash is pushing back. 'This application is a misguided and excessive attempt to target one of Canada's leading local commerce platforms,' DoorDash spokesperson Trent Hodson told CP . 'It unfairly singles out DoorDash, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.' Still, the bureau is standing its ground. 'Our litigation against DoorDash is another example of our efforts to ensure consumers are not misled and can trust the prices they see online. We urge all businesses to review their pricing practices and make sure they comply with the law,' said Matthew Boswell, commissioner of competition in a press release . The Competition Bureau has been more aggressive of late in battling drip pricing. Last fall, the bureau won a deceptive marketing case against Cineplex Inc. , noted Robb. It had been adding a mandatory $1.50 online booking fee. The company was ordered to pay a financial penalty of almost $39 million. Last summer, says Robb, the bureau reached an agreement with SiriusXM Canada . In that case, the company was ordered to pay a $3.3 million penalty over adding a fee on subscription plans that increased the monthly cost. Meanwhile, legal action against drip pricing is not exclusive to public regulators. Law firms that navigate class actions are getting in on the act too. Toronto firm, Koskie Minsky filed a statement of claim against Uber Eats with the Ontario Superior Court Justice last month. It alleges Uber Eats has been hiding an additional service fee within its overall delivery costs. The proposed class action alleges that Uber misrepresented the true cost of delivery by not disclosing the service fee until the final stage of the transaction, 'often obscured under a 'Taxes & Other Fees' line item, a practice known as drip pricing,' says the law firm on its website. The action has been brought on behalf of Canadian residents who on or after May 16, 2023, placed a delivery order using Uber Eats and paid a service fee. Further, the lawsuit alleges Uber One members, who are supposed to enjoy benefits such as no delivery fees on eligible orders, have been paying the service fee. It's 'really a delivery fee as it only applies to delivery orders' and it 'constitutes a breach of contract and negates the advertised benefit of the subscription.' Robb says 'the existence of parallel proceedings in these cases is not necessarily surprising or unusual.' He explains that the Competition Bureau has a statutory mandate to protect Canadian consumers and businesses from allegedly unfair business practices. In its case against DoorDash , it is asking the Competition Tribunal to provide restitution to consumers, though that's somewhat unusual, he says. 'It may or may not be equipped to negotiate and deliver remedies to consumers.' However, he points out that class actions always focus on recovery for consumers, 'even when the amounts are individually minimal. It is common in our cases that when they resolve, an administration mechanism is established to facilitate an accessible distribution of modest amount to individual consumers.' A recent example would be a payout website established for the bread-fixing class-action settlement. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
CBC
09-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
Competition Bureau sues food delivery company DoorDash, alleging misleading price promotions
The Competition Bureau said on Monday that it is suing the online food delivery company DoorDash for allegedly misleading consumers by advertising its services at a lower price than what customers actually end up paying. "A Bureau investigation found that consumers were unable to purchase food and other items at the advertised price on DoorDash's websites and mobile applications due to the addition of mandatory fees at checkout," said the readout from the agency. "This practice is commonly known as drip pricing and is deceptive because consumers are not presented with an attainable price upfront." The bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal, which handles cases related to Canada's competition laws. It's seeking an outcome that would have DoorDash pay a penalty and compensate affected customers, in addition to ending what it refers to as "deceptive" price and discount advertising and the portrayal of fees as taxes.
Hamilton Spectator
05-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Competition Bureau releases final anti-greenwashing guidelines
The Competition Bureau has released its final anti-greenwashing guidelines after considering more than 400 responses to the legislation that took effect about a year ago. 'While a lot of the feedback in the submissions is reflected in the final guidance, some is not,' the bureau said in a backgrounder accompanying Thursday's announcement. For instance, some suggested the guidelines spell out for businesses exactly what environmental claims they can make in their marketing material and when. But the bureau said amendments to the Competition Act that passed in June 2024 include no such rules. 'Instead, the act allows businesses to make whatever environmental claims they wish, as long as those claims are not false or misleading, and as long as those claims are adequately and properly tested or substantiated where required,' the bureau said. 'This requires an assessment not only of the literal wording of a claim, but also of the general impression created by the advertisement as a whole, including the words, images and layout.' The agency also received suggestions that it said would mean acting beyond its legal authority. The bureau said some commenters encouraged it to act as gatekeeper for private citizens wanting to launch a challenge, but it said that is the responsibility of the Competition Tribunal. The bureau added it should be left up to the courts to interpret terminology included in the legislation. Some of those weighing in argued that the bureau's enforcement of greenwashing provisions should mirror that of securities law, but the guidance says there should be a distinction between the two. 'In the bureau's view, the protections afforded to ordinary consumers under the act should not be limited to the protections afforded to people who are seeking to invest in capital markets,' it said. The new Competition Act provisions dealing with greenwashing require that companies' environmental claims be based on 'adequate and proper testing' and 'proper substantiation in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology.' When draft guidelines were released in December and put to public consultation, questions were raised about what exactly 'internationally recognized methodology' entails. In the final guidelines, the bureau said it would likely pass muster if it were recognized in two or more countries — but not necessarily by those countries' governments. The bureau said it has taken enforcement action on two environmental claims over the past two years — against coffee-pod maker Keurig and automaker Volkswagen — under deceptive marketing practices provisions. Violations under those provisions can lead to fines of $10 million or higher. Energy sector players are among those who have raised concerns about the legislation, with many clamming up on their climate communications in response. Shortly after the law passed, the Pathways Alliance — a group of oilsands majors planning to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from their operations — removed virtually all content from its website and social media feeds, citing uncertainty over the rules. 'While Greenpeace would argue the oilsands' greenwashing was always illegal, the new rules make it abundantly clear that the Pathways Alliance's net zero claims do not pass the sniff test, which is likely why the companies so abruptly deleted them and their social media history,' said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada. 'The climate change-fuelled wildfires that have driven tens of thousands of Canadians out of their homes again this year are a stark illustration of how making false environmental claims to delay real climate action is not a victimless crime.' Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has spoken out against the greenwashing rules, among a litany of other federal environmental moves. A day after the April federal election, the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors laid out its priorities for the Liberal government in Ottawa, including that it 'scrap greenwashing legislation that unfairly silences Canadian companies from showcasing their world-leading environmental performance and economic contributions.' In April, Canada's largest bank dropped its target of facilitating $500 billion in sustainable financing, in part due to the anti-greenwashing legislation. RBC also decided not to disclose its energy supply ratio, a measure of how its financing of high- and low-carbon energy compare. At the time, RBC vice-president Jennifer Livingston said no internationally recognized methodologies existed for some of the measurements. 'We are disappointed not to share these metrics externally but will continue to monitor and report them internally to measure our progress,' she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 5, 2025.
Hamilton Spectator
28-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Google, Competition Bureau battle over possible constitutional challenge in case
TORONTO - Canada's competition watchdog says it will fight a constitutional challenge from Google in a case alleging the tech giant abused its dominant position in the online advertising market. New filings made in the case say the Competition Bureau will ask the Competition Tribunal to strike Google's proposed motion to proceed with a constitutional challenge because the commissioner feels it is premature and without merit. Constitutional challenges question acts that could violate someone's rights or freedoms and often end up being precedent-setting. Google's challenge takes aim at the monetary penalty the bureau is asking the tech company pay, if it is found to have abused its dominant position in online advertising. The company says the penalty could wind up costing it billions, dwarfing the profits it generates in Canada and amounting to a total that is disproportionate to the allegations Google is facing. It argues the penalties would also breach the company's entitlements under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, necessitating a constitutional challenge. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 28, 2025.
