CCPC BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS’ DECISION ON YANGO ZAM LIMITED INVESTIGATIONS

2026-02-03

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (the Commission) wishes to clarify and provide accurate information regarding recent media reports following its media briefing held on 2^nd February 2026.

The Commission has noted that certain sections of the media reports have selectively highlighted and hence failed to fully avail the public with the accurate and full details of among other cases concluded in 2025, the case related to Yango Zam Limited (Yango).

As the statutory authority mandated to investigate, assess, and determine competition and consumer protection matters, the Commission considers it important to outline the background, scope, and outcome of the investigations relating to Yango Zam Limited, which were concluded by the Commission and determined by the Board of Commissioners in 2025. This is intended to support public understanding of the matter within its proper legal and procedural context.

In the interest of transparency, accountability, and public understanding, the Commission hereby sets out the factual background, findings, and determination relating to the investigations into Yango Zam Limited, as conducted by the Commission and determined by the Board of Commissioners.

This statement therefore is meant to provide clarity on the correct facts on the Yango matter as presented in the Press Statement by the Commission’s Executive Director.

In 2022, the Commission initiated investigations against Yango Zam Limited regarding allegations of predatory pricing of online ride hailing services. The Investigation was initiated after the Commission received complaints alleging that Yango Zam was pricing taxi rides below the marginal costs incurred in the provision of ride hailing services, to obtain market share. It was alleged that the conduct made other competitors in the online ride hailing service provision, who did not have the capacity to price below marginal costs, to exit the market. It was alleged that once all the competitors had exited the market, Yango Zam would hike their prices and make abnormal profits to the detriment of consumers. It was further submitted that Yango Zam was not paying taxes for their operations in Zambia and as such were able to charge lower prices than their competitors who were paying taxes.

The Commission also received complaints where it was alleged that the prices that Yango Zam was charging customers on the Yango digital platform were too low. The complaints further alleged that drivers were unable to cancel rides if they decided not to proceed with the order before picking the customer and that before picking the customer, drivers were unable to see the details of trips such as destination and price of the trip. Further, it was alleged that even the other incentives such as the weekly bonuses which were previously provided by Yango Zam to the drivers were withheld or revoked in unexplained circumstances.

Further complaints received by the Commission against Yango Zam entailed that online ride hailing drivers were operating outside the provisions of the Road Traffic Act No. 11 of 2002 as they did not hold licenses which allowed them to operate as taxi service providers. It was submitted that this was unfair as traditional taxi operators were required to carry such licenses. In addition, it was also alleged that passengers had the ability to reduce the fare for the ride and did not consider the wear and tear of the vehicle.

Following a comprehensive investigation and consideration of the submissions made relating to violations under the Competition and Consumer Protection Act No. 24 of 2010 as amended, the Board of Commissioners determined that Yango Zam Limited contravened Sections 8, 10, and 16(2)(a) of the Competition and Consumer Protection Act. The Board further determined that Yango Zam Limited did not contravene Section16 (2) (g) of the Act.

In resolving this case, the Board determined that Yango ZAM Limited had violated

a)    Section 8, on Anti-Competitive agreements or concerted practices concluding that their agreement had the illegal effect of preventing and restricting competition in violation of the Act

b)   Section 10, that lack of pricing autonomy, driven by the platform's control over fare calculation and presentation, functions as an indirect form of Resale Price Maintenance.

c)    And that Yango abused its dominant position in the market, contrary to Section 16 (2) (a) of the Act, by imposing unfair trading conditions on drivers.

d)   They further determined that Yango Zam Limited did not contravene Section 16 (2) (g) of the Act, that Yango did not set prices below the marginal cost when providing online ride hailing services.

In view of the deliberations and determination given above, the Board of Commissioners further directed that:

a.     Yango is fined 2 % of their total annual turnover for violation of Section 8 of the Act;

b.     Yango is fined 7% of their total annual turnover for violation of Section 10 of the Act.

c.      Yango is fined 3% of their total Annual Turnover for violation of Section 16 of the Act.

d.     Yango submits it audited book of accounts for 2023 for the determination of the fine.

e.      Yango opens a physical interaction platform with the drivers where drivers can air their grievances and concerns and suggestions.

f.       Yango should ensure that their platform shows the price and destination of a trip before a driver accepts a ride; and,

g.     The Complainants be informed of the Commission’s findings.

CCPC

PR Unit