Bribed police in Indonesia

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 313) reports that Uber managers in Indonesia bribed police in a dispute about location of driver service centers.  Isaac explains:

Instead of moving the company’s hubs, local Uber managers decided to pay off the cops. Every time a police officer would show up, an Uber manager would fork over a cash bribe—usually around 500,000 rupiah, around the equivalent of $35 USD, and the officer would leave. Unsurprisingly, the police became regular visitors.

The US Department of Justice investigated these payments — among others in China, India, and Malaysia — as possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  In January 2020 the investigation was closed without enforcement action.

Thailand manager assaulted employee and pushed her face into drugs

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 240) describes a toxic workplace at Uber in Thailand, including drug use and visits from sex workers.  He continues:

One particularly raucous evening, a bunch of Uber Thailand employees were up late drinking and snorting coke, a semiregular occurrence at that office. One female Uber employee with the group had decided she didn’t want to do drugs with her colleagues, and tried to abstain. Before she could leave, her manager grabbed the woman and shook her, bruising her. Then he grabbed the back of her head and shoved her face-first into the pile of cocaine on the table, forcing her to snort the drugs in front of them.

Uber employee feared rape, and manager offered company health care, not help

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 240) describes an experience of a female employee in Malaysia who noticed men following her from work, leading her to fear she would be raped.  She texted multiple people seeking help, including her manager, the local Uber general manager.  Rather than rush to the scene or call the police, the manager texted: “Don’t worry, Uber has great health care. We will pay for your medical bills.”

Millions of dollars wasted on fraud in China

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 183) describes scams in China seeking to steal sign-up incentives:

[I]n China, drivers and riders colluded to scam Uber out of billions in incentives, divvying the rewards. Most scammers found each other over text-based Chinese internet forums, a simple, anonymous way to match people who wanted to make a quick buck. They developed their own codified language; drivers seeking a fake ride would ask for “an injection,” a reference to the small, red digital pin that signaled a user’s location inside the Uber app. A “nurse,” or scammer, could respond in kind to give a “shot” to the original poster by creating a new fake account and going on a fake ride with the driver. The two parties would then split the bonus incentive payment from Uber. Repeated over and over across dozens of cities, small driver bonuses mushroomed into millions in squandered cash.

The obvious solution was to better verify drivers and passengers, to prevent repeat signups.  But this was off the table:

To juice growth, Kalanick had made the new user sign-up process as simple as possible. Joining Uber only required a name, email address, phone number, and credit card number, all of which were easily replicable. Fraudsters simply entered fake names and emails. Then they used apps like “Burner” or “TextNow” to create thousands of fake telephone numbers to be matched with stolen credit card numbers. But requiring Chinese users to add other, more precise, forms of identification would add more friction to the process. And, as Kalanick’s data scientists found in their research, adding friction slowed growth. For Kalanick, putting a dent in growth was not an option.

Isaac then explains the additional methods scammers implemented to create fake riders, including cheap cell phones and disposable SIM cards to simulate additional personas.

Australian competition regulator scrutinized Uber Eats contracts

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said he would examine controversial contract provisions Uber required restaurants to accept when selling food through the Uber Eats delivery service. Restaurants complained about contract terms that said they, and not Uber, were responsible for late deliveries — though they thought it was Uber, and not them, that caused delays and was better positioned to make sure deliveries were on time.

Multiple competition regulators questioned Uber-Grab deal

Reviewing Uber’s proposed sale of its Southeast Asia business to Grab, the Competition Commisison of Singapore (CCS) announced that it is looking into the transaction.

Broadly, CCS said the proposed transaction would bring “substantial lessening of competition in relation to the chauffeured personal point-to-point transport passenger and booking services market in Singapore.” CCS therefore required Uber and Grab to maintain their pre-transaction pricing, policies, and products, and not to exchange any confidential information.

After CCS’s statement of concern, Malaysia’s Land Public Transport Commission also announced that it would examine the proposed transaction. The Philippines’ anti-trust agency, the Philippine Competition Commission, then stated similar concerns: “There are reasonable grounds that the said acquisition may likely substantially lessen, prevent, or restrict competition.”

Coverage from TechCrunch and prior critique from the author of this site.

Overlapping investor SoftBank sought to reduce competition

As Uber announced its sale of Southeast Asia assets to Grab, some flagged the overlapping investor that facilitated the transaction. In particular, SoftBank (a Japanese investment firm) held shares in both Grab and Uber. Owning part of both companies, SoftBank stood to profit no matter which one prevailed in the markets where both operated — but stood to lose if the firms engaged in continued competition with each other.

Furthermore, SoftBank specifically sought to broker peace between Grab and Uber: When investing in Uber in December 2017, SoftBank sought a discount exactly because it could influence Uber’s competitors across Asia.

Similar concerns arose from SoftBank holding shares in both Uber and Ola, a ride-hailing competitor in India. Discussing those overlapping holdings, SoftBank told the Economic Times of India: “we are hoping that we make peace between them at some point.” Such a “peace” could raise competition concerns in so far as it entailed competitors agreeing not to compete.

See Edelman’s critique of SoftBank’s role as well as economist Martin Schmalz’s tweet on the impact of cross-ownership.

Poised to sell Southeast Asia assets to Grab

Uber announced plans to sell its Southeast Asia assets to Grab, the dominant ride-hailing firm in that region. This transaction raised competition concerns because Grab and Uber jointly controlled the overwhelming majority of ride-hailing service in the region. The transaction thus created an effective monopoly for Grab — allowing the company to charge higher prices and fees, to the detriment of both drivers and passengers.

Sold Chinese assets to Didi

Rather than continuing to compete with Didi Chuxing, the dominant ride-hailing service in China, Uber sold its Chinese assets to that firm — essentially ending competition in ride-hailing in that country.

This transaction raised several concerns. One, Didi and Uber jointly controlled the overwhelming majority of ride-hailing service in China. The nearest competitor had just 3.3% market share as of the time of the transaction. The transaction thus created an effective monopoly for Didi — allowing Didi to charge higher prices and fees, to the detriment of both drivers and passengers.

Two, as part of the transaction, Uber received 17.5% ownership of Didi, and Didi in turn held an investment in Lyft. So the Didi-Uber deal made Uber a part owner of its biggest US competitor.