 |
|
|
|
 |
Regret over the Anti-Tada Bill that Ignores our Benefits and Options
National Assembly Neglects Benefits resulting from the Competition between Old and New Services
|
|
|
We condemn the fact that the National Assembly has voted to pass the controversial Anti-Tada Bill, despite there being other important issues in this COVID-19 crisis, while the consumers’ needs are being completely neglected. “Tada” is an innovative mobility service developed in response to the feelings of dissatisfaction towards the existing taxi services.
Last month, the Seoul Central District court ruled in favor of “Tada” and dismissed the prosecution’s opinion that it was a “rent-a-car service based on a mobile application” instead of “an illegal call-taxi service.” But yesterday, in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, some lawmakers expressed an objection saying that they should delay the discussion on this matter until the May session (after the general election), and despite a mutual consultation with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport concerning the consumer benefits, the legislation was nonetheless passed. In December, the KFTC objected to the proposed revision of the passenger transportation law, i.e. the Anti-Tada Bill, since a law that could outlaw a specific transportation platform business could result in hindering fair market competition and limiting the consumer benefits.
With the rapid development of IT technology, there are lots of platform business that cannot be categorized based on the existing concepts, which have expanded the range of consumer choice. However, the laws and regulations cannot keep up with the advances in technology. From this point of view, we welcome the attempt to legislate the businesses outside the system for people’s safety. However, the Anti-Tada Bill focuses on only the restrictions, and does not reflect the features of the platform operators, as drivers who do not possess a tax license are prohibited. The passengers loved the Tada service, since they could say goodbye to unfriendly services and choose the services they wanted, but the lawmakers ignored all of this. A poll conducted in February involving 7,000 office workers revealed that 84% of the respondents said they supported legalizing the “Tada” service for the following reasons: taxi service should be improved by innovation and competition; the drive for innovation could not be regulated by the existing laws; they wanted more options; and they did not want to use the unsatisfactory services of the present taxi industry.
We understand that protection for the existing transportation industry is necessary to a certain extent. But it is the consumers’ turn. We demand a friendly service whenever we want it and where we want it. New services focusing on consumer benefits, such as Tada, should be welcomed in the market, and consumer-oriented technology developments are required. We therefore urge the lawmakers to pay attention to how the existing services have changed with the advent of Tada, and to focus on a reform of the passenger transportation industry through fair competition. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
