O presente artigo trata da análise do caso Uber no Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, que teve como resultado o arquivamento pela autoridade antitruste brasileira, em virtude da inexistência de indícios suficientes para a configuração de infrações à ordem econômica. O estudo perpassa pelas possíveis condutas restritivas à concorrência nas quais a empresa Uber, derivada do modelo de negócio desenvolvido por uma empresa de rede de transporte (ERT) e inserida em um mercado inovador de serviços de transporte remunerado privado individual de passageiros e de plataforma de vários lados, poderia ter praticado, quais sejam: cartel hub and spoke, influência à adoção de conduta comercial uniforme, ou fixação de preço de revenda, através das metodologias de análise concorrenciais, regras per se e regra da razão.
Uber’s platform, as is the case of any transportation network company (TNC), is a multi-sided platform that promotes interaction between passengers and drivers. It is therefore relevant to analyze, based on the proceeding filed and later dismissed, by the Cade General Superintendence, the practice of possible anticompetitive conduct by Uber derived from a business model that didn’t even exist a few years ago. The case was based on the analysis of anticompetitive practices, especially hub and spoke cartel, the influence to the adoption of uniform business conduct and resale price maintenance, taking into account the traditional analysis methodologies of competition crimes, per se rules and rule of reason. In view of the high control exercised by the Uber platform with its suppliers, since its business model has its own characteristics that tend to coordinate their partner drivers’ performance, questioning the possible practice that restrict competition is pertinent.
