Snapp Exempted from Paying Damages

Snapp’s Statement
It should be noted that Snapp does not accept the endorsement of anti-competitive behavior by the Review Board and has stated that while respecting the council’s decision, it reserves the right to appeal this part of the decision to the Administrative Court of Justice.

Based on the revised decision and the non-confirmation of paying damages, it is evident that the documented SIM cards were registered in Snapp’s name and were utilized in market investigations. Snapp’s actions in the course of market research have been conducted in a completely scientific and professional manner, and experts in the field know that there is a clear boundary between market research and anti-competitive conduct.

The statement also mentions: The allegation raised regarding the attempt to attract drivers from another online taxi company has been realized by Snapp when none of the drivers are officially employed by any internet taxi company, and all companies have the right to choose drivers for their fleets. Since Snapp has captured over 90% of the internet taxi market share, almost all internet taxi drivers are members of this system, and the claim of attempting to attract drivers from another company is not well-founded. On the contrary, this issue is one of Snapp’s concerns in the competitive market, which fortunately the respected Competition Council is sensitively addressing.

Snapp further emphasized that over the past 9 years, their focus has been on complying with the laws and removing obstacles for all internet taxi services, and they have steered clear of distracting controversies. Snapp sees the advancement of the market in line with healthy competitive decisions and behavior, thereby providing growth opportunities for all active players in this field. The hope is that all digital economy actors remain committed to this promise.

Earlier, Tapsi issued a statement on Codal, announcing that the Competition Review Board had confirmed the anti-competitive practices of Snapp.

In the past month, Tapsi had filed a complaint against Snapp, and the Competition Council had ruled in favor of anti-competitive behavior and imposing damages on Snapp. Tapsi had alleged that Snapp had obtained contact information of Tapsi drivers and lured them into collaboration with promises of higher earnings. However, Snapp requested a review of the decision and in the new decision by the Competition Council, the order for “return of additional income” was removed.