Uber Is a Taxi Service, the E.C.J. Says, in Major Setback to Firm

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/uber-europe-ecj.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld

by hvo • 9 years ago

79 26 9 years ago

sidlls2• 9 years ago

Here's a Reuters article on this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-dealt-blo...

I'm not sure "major setback" applies. They lost a court case, but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway. If that's accurate it seems like the ruling is a formality in some sense, and the Reuters title is more accurate. It is a blow, but in the sense that they lost the case, not that it substantially affects how they operate.

superqwert• 9 years ago

Of course it will affect them - they will have to ensure their drivers are fit to drive at all times. Drivers will not be able to work extended periods of times and Uber may be forced through this to pay for holidays + sick leave.

tomludus• 9 years ago

Yes this is a very good point. I asked an Uber driver in London if they put any restrictions on driving time and he confirmed that they did not. Might have to rethink that one.

sidlls2• 9 years ago

Not that Uber can be trusted, but they claim they're already in compliance with pertinent laws. In other words the effects have already occurred. It seems like this case was an attempt to reverse that condition and they lost.

CaptainZapp• 9 years ago

  but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway

That's true in Switzerland. That's why Uber Pop was essentially shut down in Basel, Zurich and now Geneva.

Of course Uber PR spun this with yet some more cringeworthy fluff.

tici_88• 9 years ago

It feels like the ruling is essentially stating the obvious.

whb07• 9 years ago

Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court?

To me all this stinks of using the courts to protect the market share of the taxi unions because they are unable to do it from years of protectionism.

ghaff• 9 years ago

Because the taxi unions have a far less diffuse interest than the general public does.

Look, I have no idea if the existing rules are sensible or just erected as barriers to new entrants. Probably a bit of both. However, in general, businesses and individuals can't just say: "Nope, the law is stupid so I'll just ignore it."

I may think that things like liquor licenses for restaurants are a scam in many cities in the US (and they often are) but I'll get shut down in a hurry if I serve alcohol without one.

owebmaster• 9 years ago

If you think of Uber as a taxi union you can be less empathic to them, the same way people don't cheer for the taxi companies.

candu• 9 years ago

...and to me this looks like they've (quite reasonably) reached the decision that skirting labor and transportation regulations is not a legally valid form of "disruption". (See also: Airbnb's ongoing regulatory tussles with various municipalities over what constitutes a "hotel".)

That's not to say that the local taxi interest doesn't have a vested interest in pursuing this - they most certainly do, and they're just as certainly protecting their own interests. Even still, nothing about this ruling strikes me as "protectionist": the court is simply saying "you operate a taxi service, therefore you must follow the same rules as other taxi services". This is quite different from "you operate a taxi service!? Too bad, you can't operate here."

IMHO, "innovation", "competition", "disruption", etc. are not valid reasons to completely ignore laws. I have little sympathy for Uber at this point, since their modus operandi at every turn has been "ignore the laws until someone rules otherwise, then continue to ignore the laws until someone enforces the ruling". That, quite frankly, is bullshit, especially in a case where the relevant laws exist primarily to protect public safety and the rights of employees. (Contrast this with copyright law, which has a rich history of overreach and regulatory capture, and where there is a much stronger moral argument that the laws are unjust.)

criddell• 9 years ago

Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court?

I've always seen Uber as a taxi service and I have no interest in taking them to court. I've never been tempted to take a traditional taxi service to court either though.

I don't think that really matters though. What is a taxi service? My dictionary says a taxicab is a car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare. That fits pretty closely to how I use Uber, so I'm fine with calling it a taxi service. It's a duck-typing perspective I guess.

Twirrim2• 9 years ago

Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court?

Probably because they often _don't_ need to take them to court. They clarify existing or pass new laws to make the definition of a taxi clearer, or explicitly include "Ridesharing". Also elsewhere Uber has been spending lots of money lobbying government and voters to persuade them to dodge it.

It's all utter bullshit. Uber is a Taxi company. You know it, I know it. That they've managed to persuade government to look the other way while they flaunt important safety regulations has been utterly ludicrous.

I suspect they only got away with it _because_ Taxi unions have been too powerful, and everyone generally hates taking Taxis.

rbehrends• 9 years ago

It is largely a matter of standing. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directives leaves most of the details up to member states, but has a hard requirement that competitors have standing to bring legal action against unfair commercial practices [1]. Spain – where this case originated – also allows for consumer organizations to bring suit (but not individual consumers), but those will generally focus their resources on areas where competitors fail to act.

[1] Which was already a common approach in Europe before that directive was enacted.

chx• 9 years ago

This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034

Oletros• 9 years ago

No, the ECJ doesn't say that it is a taxi service, the ECJ says that Uber should be regulated as a transport service instead of an information service

jatsign• 9 years ago

Uber says they already mostly comply:

"The ruling is the first to apply to Uber across the European Union. In a statement, the company said that it already operated under the transportation law of most European countries in which it did business, and that the ruling would have little impact. It added that it would continue a dialogue with cities across Europe for its services."

jonbarker• 9 years ago

Rideshare companies seem more like huge dispatching services to me. Are these companies then all taxi services too? https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+tax...

aw1621107• 9 years ago

I think there might be a slight difference in that Uber also takes care of hiring drivers

Uber Is a Taxi Service, the E.C.J. Says, in Major Setback to Firm

Related Stories