Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The purpose of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 as amended (the Competition Act) is, among others, to promote the efficiency, adaptability and development of the economy as well as to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices. In line with this purpose, the Competition Act provides that a dominant firm is prohibited from engaging in price discrimination if such conduct will likely substantially prevent or lessen competition, which would be to the detriment of consumers. Notably, the Competition Act has established various bodies to regulate competition and act against any conduct prohibited by this Act in South Africa. These bodies include the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal, and the Competition Appeal Court. Notwithstanding the prohibition of price discrimination, the Competition Act does not expressly provide adequate enforcement tools for competition authorities to combat uncompetitive practices in the digital era. Moreover, the Competition Act does not expressly grant these statutory bodies clear roles and mandates on providing consumers with adequate and suitable redress when they have been victims of algorithmic price discrimination. With recent technological developments, electronic commerce (e-commerce), and digital transformation, consumers have become vulnerable to various challenges such as excessive pricing, data breaches and algorithmic pricing. The online and digital markets are characterised by complex transactions, innovative technologies and business practices which expose all consumers, including vulnerable consumers, to different risks. As such, the role of the competition authorities needs to be recalibrated to enhance consumer protection on the pricing of goods and services. To this end this paper seeks to investigate the role and ambit of the powers of these competition authorities in the regulation of price discrimination in the context of digital transformation and the digital economy. This is done to assess whether the competition authorities have the necessary tools of enforcement to ensure that markets are competitive and to combat uncompetitive conduct in the digital economy and online markets.

The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) is an industry ombud recognised under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). The MIOSA regulates the interaction and provides for alternative dispute resolution in the automotive and related industries in South Africa. Moreover, the MIOSA is an impartial organisation that focusses on the resolution of disputes where a deadlock has been reached between the automotive and related industries and their customers, as well as relationships among participants in the automotive and related industries to the benefit of the parties. The role of the MIOSA is to make recommendations in cases referred to it where parties cannot reach common ground and are unable to arrive at mutually acceptable agreements following a dispute. This analysis explores and proffers possible solutions to address the challenges that impede the MIOSA from discharging its role and mandate under the CPA effectively in resolving consumer disputes in the South African automotive industry.

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) seeks to promote the achievement and maintenance of a fair, accessible, efficient, sustainable and responsible market place for consumer products and services in South Africa. Moreover, the CPA seeks to provide an accessible, consistent, harmonised, effective and efficient system of redress for consumers. Notably, the CPA provides that the supplier should not supply or enter into an agreement to supply any goods or services at a price that is unfair, unreasonable, or unjust. This is generally aimed at combating any problems that are suffered by consumers when accessing goods and services in South Africa. Accordingly, various regulatory bodies and related role-players were established to enforce consumer rights and provide redress mechanisms to vulnerable and affected consumers. These consumer protection bodies and related roleplayers include the National Consumer Commission (NCC), the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT), provincial consumer courts, ordinary courts and other alternative dispute resolution agencies. These bodies and role-players are statutorily obliged to resolve consumer disputes in South Africa. However, there are some uncertainty challenges regarding the jurisdiction of ordinary courts and consumer protection regulatory bodies in relation to disputes that relate to the consumers’ right to fair, just and reasonable prices, terms and conditions of goods and services. This article discusses the role of the NCC, the NCT, provincial consumer courts, ordinary courts and other alternative dispute resolution agencies in the regulation of prices for goods, services and access to redress for affected consumers under the CPA. This is done to provide some recommendations that could resolve jurisdictional and regulatory challenges in relation to the price and access to goods and services under the CPA.