Naively assuming that a proposed market share arrangement was industry practice, and comforted that a competition lawyer had signed off on the deal as tickety-boo, was not enough to save Auckland-based courier company GoSweetSpot from a $525,000 fine for cartel behaviour in breach of the Commerce Act
Sweetspot Group Ltd was the first penalised in a Commerce Commission crackdown on anti-competitive behaviour within the annual one billion dollar courier industry.
The High Court was told of market sharing arrangements signed by Sweetspot in 2015 with Freightways’ subsidiary Post Haste Group, and in 2019 with Freightways itself, in which each agreed not to poach the other’s customers.
If offered work by an existing customer of their erstwhile competitor, each agreed not to quote for the new work. The new job could be taken up only after discussions with their supposed competitor.
These non-compete arrangements had been bundled into a wider agreement on pricing for use of Sweetspot’s industry specific proprietary software.
Commerce Commission was told Freightways initiated these agreements, then having Sweetspot sign. Freightways told Sweetspot the deal had been signed off by a competition lawyer as compliant with the Commerce Act.
It was not compliant.
Later admitting to breaching the Act, Sweetspot told the Commerce Commission it was not aware of the illegality when signing up.
The High Court imposed a $525,000 fine.
Commerce Commission v. Sweetspot Group Ltd – High Court (8.12.25)
26.043