South Africa’s Competition Commission has referred Audatex, the dominant provider of vehicle repair estimation software, to the Competition Tribunal, seeking a penalty equal to ten percent of the company’s annual turnover over allegations of discriminatory pricing against small, black-owned repair and assessment firms.
The commission’s investigation, triggered by a complaint lodged in January 2025, examined Audatex’s pricing model between 2020 and 2024 and found reason to believe the practice persists. It concluded that the company operated a volume-based fee structure in which larger customers, who generate higher numbers of assessment quotes, paid substantially less per quote than smaller competitors buying equivalent services.
In some cases, the commission found, smaller firms and those owned by historically disadvantaged persons paid as much as fifty percent more than the average price charged to bigger clients, well beyond the ten percent differential threshold the commission treats as a safe harbour.
READ – Competition Commission Raids Scrap Metal Buyers
Audatex, a subsidiary of the Texas-headquartered Solera Group, has operated in South Africa for more than four decades and says its software processes 81% of the country’s motor insurance claims, drawing on a database of over 17 million part records covering 1,349 vehicle models. That scale, the commission argued, gave Audatex the market position to impose pricing terms smaller rivals had little power to resist, and its dominance is central to why the case falls under section 9 of the Competition Act rather than the general prohibitions that apply to firms without market power.
Section 9 was substantially rewritten in 2018 and took effect in February 2020, specifically to address the risk that dominant sellers could price smaller and historically disadvantaged firms out of effective participation in a market. Firms found to have breached it face administrative penalties of up to ten percent of turnover for a first contravention and up to twenty-five percent for a repeat offence.
Despite the provision’s prominence in policy debate, cases brought under it have rarely succeeded outright: the best-known test, Nationwide Poles’ 2005 complaint against Sasol, produced a tribunal finding against the chemicals group that was later overturned on appeal, largely because proving broader competitive harm alongside the pricing gap proved difficult. The Audatex referral will again test how far the amended provision, designed to lower that evidentiary bar for smaller complainants, actually shifts outcomes in the tribunal’s hands.
READ – Competition Commission takes aim at Uber Eats, Mr D Food
The case also lands awkwardly alongside Audatex’s own transformation record. The company obtained a Level 3 broad-based black economic empowerment certification in 2024 and has publicised training programmes for hundreds of repair-industry trainees, positioning itself as a contributor to industry transformation even as the commission’s findings describe conduct that disadvantaged black-owned firms during roughly the same period.
The stakes extend beyond one company. Commission research has repeatedly flagged how concentrated South Africa’s economy remains: small and medium enterprises make up around 95% of tax-registered firms and around 38% of employment, yet collectively earn less than a quarter of total firm revenue, while the largest ten percent of companies capture the bulk of income.
Price discrimination cases against dominant software and data providers are relatively rare compared with cartel or merger matters, making the outcome closely watched by other technology-dependent sectors, including insurance administration and healthcare claims software, where a handful of providers hold outsized market share.
Audatex could not be reached for comment on the commission’s findings before publication. The matter now proceeds to the Competition Tribunal, which will determine whether the alleged conduct amounts to prohibited price discrimination and, if so, the size of any penalty.
READ – Competition Watchdog Targets Barriers Facing Smaller Firms
| Case Snapshot | Detail |
|---|---|
| Investigation period | 2020 to 2024, with commission citing reason to believe conduct continues |
| Complaint lodged | January 2025 |
| Audatex market share | 81% of SA motor insurance claims processed |
| Alleged price gap | Up to 50% more charged to smaller and HDP-owned firms |
| Commission safe harbour threshold | 10% price differential |
| Maximum penalty exposure | 10% of annual turnover (first offence); 25% (repeat) |
| Legal basis | Section 9, Competition Act (amended 2018, effective February 2020) |
| Next step | Competition Tribunal to rule on liability and penalty |