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

[gstoddart]

If we're using ownership of cars as the threshold, then I'm afraid to tell you in many places the cab driver owns his own car.

So, I'm sorry to tell you, but once again the ways people defend Uber as being inherently different from a cab company are completely bullshit.

A cab is a commercial vehicle for hire. Uber is just a bootleg cab company playing a shell game with the definitions for their own purposes.

Your definition of a taxi not also being a personal vehicle is not real. It may apply in some places, but it most certainly is NOT the actual definition.

I'm betting there's lots of places where the cabs are owned by the drivers. And they sill fall under the regulations around taxis, commercial cars for hire, and the license and insurance required to do that.

Sorry, Uber is a cab company, no matter what they say.

Re:Taxi company

[rossdee]

Maybe its a typo, and should be spelled brayage
mules bray don't they?

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

[mark-t]

Uber doesn't own the cars, and the taxi company owns the cars

That only means that Uber's workers are more likely to fall under the classification of independent contractors instead of employees, it has no bearing on whether Uber is a taxi company or not. There is nothing inherent to being a taxi company that prohibits hiring independent contractors, who typically supply their own tools and equipment to perform a job. and any such prohibition on the part of the company, while certainly entirely permissible for a company to do, is a reflection of an employer-employee status being more likely to be applicable, and not indicative of whether it is or is not a taxi company.

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

[Veranix]

Sorry, Uber is a cab company, no matter what they say.

I'm not a fan of Uber but I'm not certain this is true, in my understanding a typical cab will drive around looking for random people to wave it down and potentially wait at certain high pickup locations.

An Uber (or Lyft) vehicle will only respond to a request from the webapp, it strikes me as more analogous to a Limo service or other hired vehicle. Are those considered taxis? (not rhetorical, I'm actually curious. For tax purposes it appears they are).

I live in a city in the Midwest, and have traveled for work to many other cities in the Midwest. Nigh universally, there is no such thing as a taxi that drives around looking for fares. You call a taxi company, or use their website, to request a taxi be dispatched to your location.

Rarely, in some cities, there are designated areas called "taxi stands" located in or near neighborhoods with a high density of bars. Taxis can sometimes be found idling there, waiting for inebriated folks to stumble their way. This is far from a ubiquitous practice, and even where the taxi stands exist, generally only contain taxis on Friday and Saturday nights.

Perhaps taxis continually circle or wait around high-traffic locations in very large cities. However, even on my trips to Chicago, I've seen only the dispatch request model.

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?

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:Abacus or Typewriter

[dywolf]

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

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.

What else could Uber not be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber could not be a pimp, they just facilitate the matching up of hookers and johns, process the payments and take a cut.

Uber could not be a slave trader, they just facilitate the matching up of slaves and slave owners, process the payments and take a cut.

Uber could not be a murder for hire company, they just facilitate the matching up of assassins and people who need someone dead...

Don't worry, it's just digital services, nothing illegal going on at all!

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?