Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Strategic decision · 2014–2022

Vinasun lost its taxi market to Grab by fighting in court instead of in the street

Ho Chi Minh City's largest taxi company tried to sue ride-hailing out of existence. The suit won $207,000. The company lost VND487B and 90% of its market.

Vinasun

What happened

Vinasun was Ho Chi Minh City's dominant taxi company, with thousands of cars and decades of brand recognition. When Grab, a Malaysian ride-hailing app, entered Vietnam in 2014, Vinasun faced the same disruption taxi companies everywhere were confronting. Its response was not to build a competing app or improve its service — it was to sue.

Vinasun won its legal battle. In 2018 a court ordered Grab to pay VND4.8 billion ($207,000) in damages for unfair competition. Grab appealed, and the case dragged on for years. While the lawyers argued, Grab's network of drivers grew, its wait times shrank, and its prices undercut metered taxis. Vinasun's fleet of 6,800 cars in 2014 sat idle in parking lots as passengers switched to their phones.

By 2020 the damage was irreversible. Vinasun posted its first quarterly loss ever — VND111 billion ($4.8M) in Q2 alone — and its first annual loss in 12 years, VND210 billion. In 2021 losses deepened to VND277 billion. The company sold 2,900 of its vehicles to survive, laid off 2,500 employees including 1,800 drivers, and by end of 2021 had cut its workforce to 1,877 — down from over 5,000 two years earlier. Its stock faced delisting after three consecutive loss-making years.

A brief post-pandemic recovery in 2022–2023 brought modest profits, but by 2024 profits were plunging again and a Singaporean fund sold its entire 9.5% stake. The company that once dominated Ho Chi Minh City's transport had been reduced to a fraction of its former self, its strategy of legal resistance having done nothing to stop the disruption.

Why it happened

  • Vinasun treated ride-hailing as a regulatory problem to be litigated, not a customer problem to be solved — while the court case ran, the market moved to phones.
  • A taxi company with a legacy fleet and unionised drivers cannot match the price and convenience of a platform that scales by adding drivers, not cars — the cost structure is fundamentally different.
  • The company had no digital strategy of its own: no app, no real-time booking, no payment system that competed with Grab's seamless experience.
What it costVND487B ($21M) lost, 2,900 vehicles, 2,500 jobs cutcostly

The lesson

When a platform competitor enters your market, legal action only slows the inevitable — the only defence is a better customer experience, not a better lawyer.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →