MyCC vs Grab Saga: What Happened?

On 19 March 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision by the High Court to quash the Malaysia Competition Commission’s (MyCC) proposed RM86 million fine against Grab Holdings Inc and its subsidiaries, GrabCar and MyTeksi (collectively referred to as “Grab”).

This marks yet another chapter in a legal saga that has spanned more than six years. The case has drawn significant public attention, not only because of the large sum involved but also due to Grab’s high-profile presence in everyday Malaysian life, especially in the e-hailing and food delivery sectors.

Many have heard about the case in passing, but few truly understand what triggered it, how it evolved into a prolonged courtroom battle, or why the courts ultimately decided in Grab’s favour.

This article breaks it down in simple terms, drawing from public court records to help demystify what happened—and why it matters.

What Sparked the Investigation?

It all began in 2018, when MyCC received multiple complaints accusing Grab of favouring its GrabCar drivers over traditional GrabTaxi drivers. These became known as the “2018 Complaints” and primarily alleged that Grab was abusing its dominant position through unfair pricing practices.

MyCC held three meetings with Grab’s representatives in connection with these complaints. However, during those discussions, Grab was never informed that a formal investigation had commenced, nor was any intention to launch such an investigation clearly communicated.

That changed on 3 December 2018, when MyCC began issuing statutory notices under the Competition Act 2010 (CA), formally requesting additional information from Grab.

These notices signified that a formal investigation was underway, centering on alleged abuse of dominance in Malaysia’s ride-hailing market. However, Grab contended that at the material time, the precise nature of the alleged abuse remained vague or was not fully disclosed in any of the statutory notices issued.

A Second Complaint Emerges

While the 2018 Complaints were still under review, another complaint was lodged on 7 March 2019 by one Mohamed Radzwan Abdul Wahab (the “Radzwan Complaint”). He claimed he had been banned from the Grab platform for allegedly promoting competing e-hailing services to riders.

Unlike the first set of complaints, MyCC did not initiate a similar formal investigatory process for the Radzwan Complaint. Grab was never informed that it was under investigation in relation to the Radzwan Complaint, nor were its representatives questioned or asked to provide further information regarding it in any of the statutory notices issued.

This distinction would later become a critical issue in the legal battle between the parties.

The Turning Point: MyCC's Proposed Decision

On 23 September 2019, MyCC issued a Proposed Decision under Section 36 of the CA, expressing its view that Grab had infringed the CA by abusing its dominant position, and proposed a financial penalty of RM86 million.

Understanding a Proposed Decision under the CA

Section 36 of the Competition Act empowers MyCC to issue a proposed decision only upon the conclusion of its investigation. Although described as a “proposed decision,” it is far from a mere administrative formality. It marks a pivotal stage in the enforcement process, signalling the end of the investigation process.

While the proposed decision does not constitute a final determination, it reflects the regulator’s preliminary view that must set out the alleged infringement in sufficient detail to allow the party concerned to understand the case against them. At this point, the burden shifts to the alleged infringing party, who is then given the opportunity to respond to the findings and present its defence. A Final Decision may only be made after this stage, thereby safeguarding fairness and transparency, and ensuring that the right to be heard is upheld.

Grab’s Objections: Two Complaints, One Set of Evidence?

Grab’s core grievance was that MyCC used evidence gathered from the 2018 Complaints to support its findings in relation to the Radzwan Complaint—despite the fact that Grab had never been informed that the latter complaint was under formal investigation.

In short, Grab argued that it was being penalised for Complaint B using evidence from Complaint A, without ever being made aware that Complaint B was being investigated in the first place. This, according to Grab, constituted a serious procedural flaw in MyCC’s investigative processes.

Grab asserted that MyCC’s approach of securing information through ambiguously worded notices deprived it of a meaningful opportunity to understand the nature of the investigation and to present exculpatory evidence—a fundamental right enshrined in the principles of natural justice.

In other words, Grab argued that, in the absence of clear disclosure of the allegations, it was effectively denied the ability to mount a proper defence prior to the issuance of the Proposed Decision.

As a result, Grab filed a judicial review application at the High Court, seeking to quash MyCC’s Proposed Decision through a legal remedy known as a certiorari.

Judicial Review: What Is It and Why Did Grab Use It?

Judicial review is a legal mechanism that allows courts to assess and review the decisions of public authorities. It ensures that these decisions are lawful, fair, and made according to proper procedures. A certiorari specifically allows a court to nullify a decision of a public authority that has legal consequences—particularly where procedural fairness has been denied.

Courts are generally disinclined to grant judicial review where an alternative remedy exists or where the decision in question has no legal consequences.

In this instance MyCC contended that Grab ought to have awaited the issuance of a Final Decision, after which it could pursue an appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, should it wish to do so.

After all, from MyCC’s perspective, a Proposed Decision does not, at least technically, constitute a final determination. On that basis, MyCC argued that the Proposed Decision, as the name suggests, had no legal effect and therefore couldn’t be challenged through judicial review.

A Final Decision Disguised as a Proposed Decision?

Grab saw things differently. It argued that what was labelled a "Proposed Decision" was, in substance, a final determination in disguise.

One of Grab’s key concerns was the RM15,000 daily penalty imposed for non-compliance, which took effect immediately from the date of issuance of the Proposed Decision. Despite being labelled a “Proposed Decision,” the imposition of the daily penalty suggested that it already carried legal consequences.

To Grab, this signalled that MyCC had effectively concluded an infringement had occurred, even before issuing a final decision. In their view, this reversed the usual presumption of innocence, undermining their legal right to be heard before any finding of liability was made.

Grab also highlighted that the language used in the Proposed Decision included definitive statements by MyCC that concluded that Grab had indeed breached the CA. Whether intentional or not, the wording gave the strong impression that MyCC had already made up its mind.

Some may ask—could this simply be a case of poor phrasing by MyCC?

But in the legal world, words matter.

Every sentence, every term, every word carries weight. Legal documents are not written casually; they shape how decisions are interpreted and enforced.

When coupled with the imposition of a RM15,000 daily penalty, Grab argued that the language used reflected what the Commission had already concluded to be true, rather than what it ought to have conveyed—namely, a neutral and preliminary assessment, as the term “Proposed Decision” would imply.

Why This Merits Judicial Review

Under the CA, only specific types of decisions can be reviewed through appeals—namely, those involving interim measures (Section 35), findings of non-infringement (Section 39), and infringement decisions (Section 40). A Proposed Decision under Section 36, however, does not fall within these categories.

Based on its view that MyCC had already reached a final determination—despite presenting it as merely a Proposed Decision—Grab argued that it had no alternative legal remedy under the CA.

As the decision carried immediate legal consequences for Grab’s rights and fell outside the categories of appealable decisions under the CA, Grab contended that judicial review was the only available recourse to set the Proposed Decision aside.

Why the Legal Dispute Spanned Six Years?

In a regulatory standoff, only one side can prevail. With MyCC eager to pocket RM86 million for its exclusive use, and Grab determined not to forfeit a sizeable share of its earnings, one could easily see 86 million reasons why this battle is being fought with such intensity.

What followed was a six-year legal journey with multiple twists and turns:

1. Grab’s initial application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed by the High Court (First High Court Decision) on 9 March 2020.

2. Grab appealed, and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on 6 October 2022 by setting aside the First High Court Decision, directing the matter to be reheard by the High Court on the merits.

3. Before the matter was heard at the High Court, MyCC sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Federal Court. That application for leave was dismissed on 5 December 2022.

4. As a result of (3) above, the matter proceeded at the High Court for a full hearing. After considering the merits of the case, the High Court ruled in Grab’s favour and quashed the Proposed Decision (Second High Court Decision) on 2 October 2023.

5. MyCC then appealed the Second High Court Decision, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling in favour of Grab on 19 March 2025.

   
   

Ultimately, the courts accepted the evidence presented and held that the Proposed Decision should be quashed on the grounds of procedural impropriety by MyCC. As of the time of writing, it remains unclear whether MyCC intends to file an appeal to the Federal Court.

Take-Home Message: A Win for Due Process

So what does this all mean for the public, and for businesses?

If you are the subject of an investigation by a regulatory body, you have the right to know the nature of the investigation. Regulators are permitted to carry out preliminary investigations discreetly, but once they begin requesting information or issuing formal notices, they must inform you of the allegations or issues being examined.

In this case, MyCC took the misapprehended view that its clandestine approach, which involved issuing vague notices without disclosing the nature of the investigation, was essential to the effectiveness of its investigative process. However, the court found that this approach went beyond what is ordinarily acceptable and marked a significant departure from the established norms of statutory investigative processes.

MyCC’s approach effectively left Grab in the dark about the nature of the investigation it was facing, depriving it of the opportunity to respond meaningfully to the alleged infringement. The court held that this lack of transparency constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.

This case serves as a cautionary tale for regulators: procedural fairness is not a mere box-ticking exercise – it is a fundamental right afforded to every individual and legal entity alike. Transparency during investigations, particularly once a party is required to respond or comply with requests, is essential to uphold the integrity of enforcement actions.

For everyone else, it serves as a powerful reminder that even in investigations conducted by public bodies and regulatory authorities, the basic right to be heard and to know the case against you remains paramount.

Suren Rajah is a practising lawyer at Messrs Rajah Chambers. The views expressed above are entirely his own.