Europe's Top Court To Decide If Uber Is Tech Firm Or Taxi Company

An anonymous reader writes: A Spanish judge has requested that the European Court of Justice determine whether or not Uber is a generic "digital service," as it claims, or a "mere transport activity." If the court rules that Uber is a transportation firm the company may have to follow the same licensing and safety rules as taxis and other hired vehicles. "Today's news means that the European Court of Justice will now determine if the national rules currently being applied to digital services like Uber are legal and appropriate under European law," said Mark MacGann, Uber's Head of Public Policy for EMEA, on a conference call with journalists.

Comments

Taxi company

[mwvdlee]

It's a taxi company

I can order a taxi online already. Why would a particular implementation of ordering transport online suddenly make it something completely different?

If you take away the cars, Uber no longer has anything to sell. If you take away the online app, they could switch to some other channel and continue.

Re:Taxi company

[gstoddart]

Why would a particular implementation of ordering transport online suddenly make it something completely different?

As far as I can tell, because Uber wants it to be.

Which, also as far as I can tell, is a complete lie as the company seems to think they stepped in unicorn poop and can now make up their own definitions and decide what laws apply to them.

Re:Taxi company

[Mashiki]

As far as I can tell, because Uber wants it to be.

Pretty much. It's a lot easier to not have to pay things like chauffeurs licensees and have the minimum required amount of insurance for liability that way.

Re:Taxi company

[GlennC]

It is not clearly illegal to hook riders up with drivers...

If the driver was not intending to go to the rider's destination until the passenger stated the destination, then the driver is soliciting for passengers.

If the driver is soliciting for passengers and does not possess the required commercial licenses and insurance, then it is clearly illegal.

I know you and your buddies are all "Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist" and such, but the fact that Uber is encouraging people to engage in illegal commerce doesn't go away just because you want it to.

Re:Taxi company

[bobbied]

Yet, Uber drivers *should* be required to follow the local laws, no exceptions.

Where I don't necessarily think that all laws are good things, you don't get to choose which ones you agree with and will follow. If you break the law, you risk paying the prescribed price when that law is enforced.

Now if Uber wants to lobby for changing the law, or organize their drivers to lead grass root efforts to get the laws they don't like changed, power too them. However, until you change the law, you live by the law... Uber wants to be above the law, or at the very least, encourage their drivers to break the law. This is not an ethical way to do business.

Re:Taxi company

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet Uber and Lyft are much more popular, so you've proved their point.

What point? Uber and Lyft being popular just means that people like what they're selling. It doesn't change what they're selling is practically a taxi service.

But why? Because they're tech companies and people like their tech (reputation systems, scheduling systems, payment systems, etc.)

Tech that functions as a taxi service. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

When people pay Uber money, they're not paying for "tech". They're paying for a ride. The "tech" just facilitates that ride. Without a ride at the end, all the tech is useless. Uber's "tech" is akin to taxi company's call center. You call in and ask for a ride, and the "system" arranges one for you.

How your "tech" and your "systems" does it doesn't change WHAT you're doing.

They specifically enable private drivers to _not_ need a taxi company.

No, they enable drivers to act as Uber's taxi drivers on a gig by gig basis (which means Uber doesn't have to hire them as employees and pay benefits).

To passengers, Uber enables them to get a ride in exchange for money. That's a taxi service. There is no business model without that ride.

Why does the question even come up?

[siddesu]

Who runs the meter and collects the money?

Easy way out for Uber

[fluffernutter]

If Uber doesn't want to be a Taxi company, then they should really stop focusing so much on carrying people around in cars.

Re:My family learned the hard way about licenses

[tomhath]

Sorry to hear of your relative's problem. But really, the next time she needs surgery she should go to what? A butcher shop? A hairdresser? You really think someone without a license is a better choice?

Abacus or Typewriter

[louic]

What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.

Re:Abacus or Typewriter

[dywolf]

A taxi company screaming "I am not a taxi company" is not a reason to change the laws.

Re:Court should refuse to rule

[Primate Pete]

This is a false analogy for two reasons:

First, in the candlemakers' appeal, the requst is to kill the competition. In the Uber case, the question is which body of law to apply. These are not parallel questions.

Second, Bastiat's appeal is fictional and based on satire and oversimplification to make a point; the Spanish judge's request is based in actual events and law, which are much more complicated.

Re:My family learned the hard way about licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the problem. Licensing should just be compliance, not barrier of entry.

Re:My family learned the hard way about licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

In absence of a licensing regime, a hairdresser could pretend to be a surgeon and you wouldn't know.

Re:Spain has a history of doing stupid things...

[Holi]

Why do you think the laws would change? Wouldn't the easiest outcome be for everyone involved be to have Uber follow the applicable laws?

I'm an Uber and Lyft user, here's why

[Virtucon]

1) I have yet to meet an unsafe driver. These people driving for both services care about what they're doing unlike Taxi drivers. I've been nearly killed more times than I care to count by Taxi drivers who are working a long shift or who got their licenses in cracker jack boxes.
2) If there's a problem, it gets resolved quickly with Uber or Lyft. With a Taxi company I have to deal with a local government bureaucracy who rarely follow up or actually deal with the complaint. I'm talking about you DC Taxi Commission.
3) I travel frequently on business, I get one set of bills and it's concise not scribbled out and also not billed to some third party company you've never heard of.
4) The pricing is consistent and easy to understand, not some byzantine billing scheme where just getting in the cab can cost you an arm and a leg. I also don't get taken for a ride so to speak, you know when the driver pads the meter.
5) Obtaining a ride and tracking it is easy.

Uber and Lyft can be put out of business very quickly if the protected monopoly of Taxi companies and various commissions just started offering a more competitive environment; that's the big threat here. You have a service that comes in and undercuts a cash cow for governments and for license holders. They don't like it because it threatens their bottom line and that's a valid argument but instead of being more competitive, they protest and burn things (like in France recently)

I also agree that whoever is driving me should be screened, a safe driver and the vehicle I'm in should be safe and reliable but I'd argue that a lot of Taxis at least in the US don't meet that criteria regardless of the litany of bureaucratic organizations that are supposed to make sure that it is. I also want these services not to use me as a mined resource for further profit. If I can get all of that from a Taxi cab, I'll use them more.