Slashdot Mirror


EU's Top Court Rules That Uber Is a Transportation Company (axios.com)

Uber is a taxi company, according to a landmark ruling from Europe's highest court. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Wednesday that the U.S. ride-hailing app is a transportation firm and not a digital company. The verdict is a long-awaited judgment expected to have major implications for how Uber is regulated throughout Europe. From a report: The E.U.'s member countries now have more clarity and authority to regulate Uber as a transportation company (more strictly than as a tech service), though many already do so. As a technology company, Uber would have been protected by E.U. law from certain restrictions by individual countries, and would have required them to notify the commission of any new regulations.

89 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. In other words... by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...European court rules that Uber is a pathological liar for claiming to be a tech firm in the first place.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:In other words... by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      Uber has been "successful" mostly trough skirting/ignoring regulations meant to protect taxi customers, thus giving them an edge over more law abiding competitors, and exploiting people desperate to make ends meet. The reason why I'm using quote marks is that they're still making some pretty heavy losses and operating for the most part on venture capital money.

      The only thing they've come up with that could be described as an innovation and just not an attempt at skirting customer protection regulations to gain an edge over competitors is the ordering system and that's easily adapted for the rest of the taxi industry. Uber could easily pivot the company and make a very profitable business out of cooperating with taxi companies, but they don't because they think they can be more profitable by being a taxi company that ignores anything that causes them extra costs.

      Seriously, if you don't like regulation and think the wild west is the way to go, you're free to pack your bags and head for the closest thing you can find to your ideal society. However until you do, you're just going to have to play by the rules set up by the society you loathe so much.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    2. Re:In other words... by gnick · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...the government having to jump in and make new regulations and burdens on companies that isn't needed...

      I don't think this is about trying to make new regulations. It's about trying to enforce employee protection regulations already in place that Uber claims don't apply to its drivers. The regulations aren't new to "transportation firms"; they're just new to Uber.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:In other words... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      What new regulations? What new burdens? All they are required to do is the same as EVERYONE ELSE in the transportation for hire business. Pretending (ie lying) about what business you are in is not 'innovative' and does not magically excuse you from the same laws that apply to everyone else.

    4. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean I like Uber, it's great for me as a customer, but it ain't right. I'm willing to look the other way because of how scuzzy normal taxis in Boston are though.

    5. Re:In other words... by TWX · · Score: 1

      The only thing they've come up with that could be described as an innovation and just not an attempt at skirting customer protection regulations to gain an edge over competitors is the ordering system and that's easily adapted for the rest of the taxi industry. Uber could easily pivot the company and make a very profitable business out of cooperating with taxi companies, but they don't because they think they can be more profitable by being a taxi company that ignores anything that causes them extra costs.

      Uber right now is a caterpillar. Uber wants to be the butterfly ready to emerge with the advent of fully self-driving cars. The current business is merely a stop-gap to achieve that goal.

      If they played by the rules then I would not care, but because they've demonstrated time and again that they will break the rules, I hope that they implode before self-driving cars are ready.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:In other words... by bv728 · · Score: 1

      Define successful?

      Do you mean 1.5 billion lost in a single quarter?
      Do you mean losing 10% market share in a year?
      Massive leadership turnover?

      Such success.

    7. Re:In other words... by Maritz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah. All this evil government regulation is why you can choose from a dozen or more ISPs almost everywhere in Europe. You get to choose... the only one that operates in your fucking town. Well done you.

      The same evil government regulation has made calling between nations in Europe cost next to fuck all whereas it used to cost a small fortune. Boo, government.

      Libertarians. Boring one-note fuckers.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re:In other words... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Shhh he's having fun with 'everything every government does is evil".

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    9. Re:In other words... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This is EU government against a US company. Jingoism and xenophobia are just popping up, coupled with a dash of revenge because VW got caught. Nothing more than that. If Uber were a French or German company, they would have had carte blanche to do what they felt like.

      lol. You should have just said "I know absolutely fuck all about how the world works". At least that would have been accurate.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    10. Re:In other words... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If they played by the rules then I would not care, but because they've demonstrated time and again that they will break the rules, I hope that they implode before self-driving cars are ready.

      Maybe it is the RULES themselves that need changing...break the monopolies that the taxi companies have had all these years, and force the entrenched companies to compete, and perhaps we'd see marked improvement on the taxis that are available.....

      I mean because right now, a taxi cannot compete on cleanliness, promptness or price with Uber. They have no incentive to at this time.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:In other words... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Now we see why Britain is pulling out of the EU.

      A bunch of dickheads were convinced it would make all the brown people go away?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    12. Re:In other words... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      What customer protection regulations are you talking about?

      Geez, the last cabs I've been in, where ragged, shitty and frankly, the person driving it scared me....looked like a hardened convict.

      That's something to take up with either your city or state. In most places, they're not like that at all. Sounds like to me you have a far bigger problem with "entrenched politicians" then "entrenched cab companies."

      Those "consumer protection" regulations and mandatory requirements include: Having the proper license(chauffeurs), proper insurance, including liability insurance and personal injury, first aid training(in Canada most require class a or b), 1yr safety inspections, 6mo "file and report" vehicle self-inspections, police background checks, automatic license revocation on drunk driving charge and the list goes on. That's all normal stuff that in Canada for example, Uber and Lyft among others have been trying to skirt for years by trying to claim they're not a cab company.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:In other words... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Are you drunk again?
      Reread the fucking title of the article. It is the EU, and European taxis are generally safe and clean, thanks to the customer protection regulations.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:In other words... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You realise that taxi monopolies are pretty rare? It's oddities like the New York medallion system that create them. In most of the EU, there are multiple competing taxi companies, but the rates that they can charge are fixed (and their meters are audited periodically) so they have to compete on service.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:In other words... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The same evil government regulation has made calling between nations in Europe cost next to fuck all whereas it used to cost a small fortune. Boo, government.

      I'm not sure that the government gets this one. My phone company abolished roaming charges within the EU before they were legally required to and now calling France costs the same as calling the UK. It took so long to get these regulations passed that the market was pretty much there already: the phone companies were seeing all of their international call revenue lost to things like Skype.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:In other words... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      There is no 'taxi monopoly' in NYC. 40% of the medallions are owned by a driver with only ONE medallion. The rates, car requirements, minimum and maximum hours on the road, inspection requirements, etc are all set by the CITY.

    17. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As a passenger, I don't give a shit who owns the car. There is one organization that sets all of the rules and all of the prices for all taxis. That's a monopoly. Uber drivers own their own cars too, but Uber is still a single organization. Just because a Taxi driver own's one medallion and one car doesn't make him any more independent than an Uber driver. That fact is precisely what this court case was about.

    18. Re:In other words... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Define successful:
      Successful in bankrupting its own drivers?
      Successful in creating a cab company where cabs don't show up?
      Successful in not having a fixed cost?
      Successful in not providing required services for minorities?
      Successful in letting disqualified drivers become chauffeurs?

      Maybe you're more the subtle type:
      Successful in tracking and evading inspection services?
      Successful in breaching the privacy of users?

      Speaking of I have yet to see a single new regulation in the EU levied against Uber. I have however seen plenty of cases where Uber has attempted to circumvent existing legislation including those for the protection and fair treatment of their *employees* and the protection of the users of their service.

      It's popular because it's cheap. It's cheap because its skirting the law. And if all that sounds good to you, I have a bridge to sell you .... hmmm that's a slightly different use of that phrase.

    19. Re:In other words... by TimothyHollins · · Score: 2

      In other words....government finds a way to get in and mess up something that has been innovative, proven popular and successful.

      Taxi services are innovative? Part-time employment is innovative?

      What is it exactly about Uber that is "innovative"?

    20. Re:In other words... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Technically, this only affects Uber because they were trying to run their business as if they were a taxi company (with their drivers owning their "taxis" instead of Uber providing them).

      I think the court case would've been much more interesting if Uber had tried to operate like Craigslist or a stock exchange. People seeking rides would request them on Uber's site, drivers giving rides would bid on the requests. The people seeking rides could select one of the bids, or wait to see if any cheaper bids came in (aware this could cause them to lose older bids as drivers left to give rides to others). And Uber collected a transaction fee for each successful pairing.

      But the way Uber operates, dictating just about everything about their drivers except when they work and making them get buy their own car and insurance, the EU Court's ruling is not at all surprising.

    21. Re:In other words... by Baleet · · Score: 1

      The old saying is, "If you call its tail a leg, how many legs does a cat have?" The answer is, "Four. Just because you call it a leg doesn't make it one." You can make a lot of stupid jokes and try not to understand that little joke, but the point is that things 'are" what they are, depending on what they do, not what you call them. Or, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

    22. Re:In other words... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The guys in the UK that are concerned about foreigners are not concerned about brown people.
      The brown people come from the commonwealth.

      They are concerned about EU citizens coming from Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:In other words... by hawk · · Score: 1

      That's not fair.

      They're using "contractors" to connect to the user base they're building until they have their own autonomous fleet.

      That makes them, err, a, oh never mind . . .

    24. Re:In other words... by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The US is one of the most protectionist and jingoistic countries in the whole world, basically on par with China and Russia, rattling their swords every time someone even thinks about moving away from the dollar for international trade. There were even veiled military threats when the Euro was introduced.

      The real thing here is that the US and the UK want to bring in full corporatism, which is one of the 5 pillars of fascism, and the EU does not want that crap again. We remember the horrors of company stores, company credit, companies setting national policies etc etc

    25. Re:In other words... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      In other words....government finds a way to get in and mess up something that has been innovative, proven popular and successful.

      These days, you can't do much to try something new or a new slant on things, without the government having to jump in and make new regulations and burdens on companies that isn't needed.

      Solutions in search of a problem.

      Good thing govt wasn't this bad a 100 or so years ago....we'd otherwise still have a thriving buggy whip industry.

      Wow..rated "Troll", eh?

      I'm constantly amazed at all the Uber Hate around here....I love and use the service all the time.

      Always a much better experience than a taxi cab IMHO...

      I think the better answer is to remove regulations from the cab, rather than foist them upon Uber and its like.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re: In other words... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how many believe that leaving the EU will stop Muslim immigration to the UK.

    27. Re:In other words... by youngone · · Score: 1

      I hope that they implode before self-driving cars are ready...

      I would imagine they will keep going as long as they can find new "investors" who are happy to suck up $2 billion losses per year.
      Then they will implode.

    28. Re:In other words... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      That's something to take up with either your city or state. In most places, they're not like that at all.

      Actually in MOST cities I've been to in the US, what I described as the deplorable state of most cabs and drivers holds true.

      I consistently have a better Uber experience with reference to the vehicles and the drivers.

      I have almost always felt safer in an Uber car, than with an official taxi cab.....and that's not even getting into the more reasonable Uber rates and quick response times.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:In other words... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Are you being paid for this blatant advertising or are you just a useful idiot?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    30. Re:In other words... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a passenger, I don't give a shit who owns the car. There is one organization that sets all of the rules and all of the prices for all taxis. That's a monopoly. Uber drivers own their own cars too, but Uber is still a single organization. Just because a Taxi driver own's one medallion and one car doesn't make him any more independent than an Uber driver. That fact is precisely what this court case was about.

      That "one organization" you are referring to is the local government. The next city over has another, completely separate "one organization" that sets the rules for all taxi companies that operate within it's jurisdiction.

      I don't think you understand what monopoly means. Government regulation of an industry does not make it a monopoly.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    31. Re:In other words... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Suggest you research why the taxi system was built in the first place. Prior to that, it was "uber" style, you call someone and they came to get you. There were a lot of issues with that system and the current system came out of those problems.

      The taxi laws probably need to be revised, but violating them istn the answr.

    32. Re:In other words... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      I cant upvote as i commented here.. but this is spot on!

    33. Re: In other words... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Point is: it would not.
      The EU has no mainly muslime countries.
      However India, Parkistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc. are all commonwealth nations, and either mainly muslime or have a big muslim polulation.
      That basically means they can enter the UK with a valid passport, don't need a visa and can settle there.
      Of course that is the same for every comonwealth citizen.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re: In other words... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      That is completely wrong. People from outside the EEA need to apply for the right to settle here irrespective of whether the country is Commonwealth or not and they need a valid reason like work or marriage. Despite what our tabloid morons would have you believe, it's really hard (and expensive) to get into the UK if you're not an EEA citizen.

    35. Re:In other words... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The guys in the UK that are concerned about foreigners are not concerned about brown people. The brown people come from the commonwealth.

      They are concerned about EU citizens coming from Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Romania etc.

      You are making the fundamental mistake of assuming that racists are rational.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re: In other words... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The EU has no mainly muslime countries.

      The Brexiters got round that technical difficulty by declaring that Turkey was about to be given full membership of the EU with Sharia law following shortly after.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:In other words... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Are you being paid for this blatant advertising or are you just a useful idiot?

      A lot of people here genuinely love Uber purely because they are disruptive and anti-government. I imagine the crossover with Trump voters is pretty high.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    38. Re: In other words... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I doubt Turkey will ever join the EU.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:In other words... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why should I make such a mistake?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:In other words... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Actually in MOST cities I've been to in the US, what I described as the deplorable state of most cabs and drivers holds true.

      You should try traveling outside of the US then, because it's not like that in Canada, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Denmark or anything else. In many cases cab companies are where all those countries were 50 years ago, and there really isn't any desire to make changes because of a variety of reasons. Almost all of them relate to government. So again, that's an elected official problem.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:In other words... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I love it because there is now no reason to ever risk drinking and driving like in the past...it is quick, easy and economic to get an uber, whereas it is not with a cab.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:In other words... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      the only valid reason for drunk driving is having shit for brains.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    43. Re:In other words... by dkatana · · Score: 1

      True, and that could mean trouble for other gig-economy business such as Deliveroo and, most importantly Airbnb: https://citiesofthefuture.eu/t...

  2. It's about time by magzteel · · Score: 1
    Uber is in the taxi business, period. They use technology to run their business, just like every other company.

    By their logic e-trade can't be regulated as a stock brokerage business. They are just a technology platform that connects sellers and buyers.

    1. Re:It's about time by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      "What can we get away with?" has been a corporate tactic for a very long time. And while it's hardly limited to corporations, they tend to have bigger legal teams.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:It's about time by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Why is a nerd tech website so obsessed with taxi's?

    3. Re:It's about time by Baleet · · Score: 1

      And sometimes people push back. So?

    4. Re:It's about time by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why is a nerd tech website so obsessed with taxi's?

      People like the idea that by coding an app you can overthrow the government and become a billionaire. Technological Randism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. Good by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another one in the face for those silicon valley arsewipes who's idea of "disruption" is destroying established businesses through undercutting and paying as little as possible to both employees (yes, they are in the EU) and the taxman.

    Tell you what bro's - if you don't want to pay tax how about you don't use any facilities paid for out of tax revenue? That would be , oh, most roads in the world I suspect!

    1. Re:Good by TWX · · Score: 1

      I'm much more concerned by their ignoring passenger livery laws than anything else. If stupid people want to wear-out their own personal cars for minimum wage, fine, more power to them. But I expect commercial insurance, driver background checks, and in congested places, them to comply with whatever vehicle-count licensing system exists.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Good by nasch · · Score: 1

      Businesses don't tend to last very long paying more than necessary in wages or taxes.

    3. Re:Good by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Remember when Henry Ford bankrupted the Ford Motor Company when he doubled his workers' daily wage?

      Lol, Ford. Not a name anyone would associate with a car nowadays, amirite?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:Good by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Those don't even come close to covering the costs of maintaining the system. Corporation tax is required too.

    5. Re:Good by nasch · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you found a single exception. My point is Uber is far from unique in seeking to reduce their labor and tax expenses. How many companies do you think you could find doing the same thing if you went looking? You would definitely get bored before you ran out of references.

    6. Re:Good by nasch · · Score: 2

      Whoosh!

    7. Re:Good by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yep. They're seeking to reduce those costs, and now a court has slapped them down because they're a taxi company whether they fucking like it or not. The world keeps turning and Uber can suck it the fuck up.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re: Good by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...destroying established businesses

      Yeah, the "business" of cab companies handing envelopes of cash to city governments. Fuck cab companies.

    9. Re:Good by DogDude · · Score: 1

      That's not at all true. You should do some research. The best companies in the world pays "more than necessary".

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re:Good by hawk · · Score: 1

      But that wasn't about worker welfare, nor was it the urban legend about workers being able to buy cars.

      Worker turnover at auto makers in general at the time was about three times a year. At the higher wage, workers stayed over a year on average, becoming more skilled and radically reducing training costs.

      Note: iirc, Cadillac had significantly longer retention than the industry at large.

      Note 2: the higher wage avoiding training costs is also the economic reason that you don't see layoffs after a moderate minimum wage increase--the training costs have already been paid, and the effect is seen when not all the workers are replaced..

      doc hawk, displaced Economics professor

    11. Re:Good by nasch · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. "More than competitors" and "more than necessary" are not the same after all. Perhaps for that company paying more than their competitors is necessary to maintain their competitive advantage. If you can show me a common practice of paying more than the lowest wage that would accomplish every business objective then I'll change my tune.

    12. Re:Good by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      But there is a difference between (say) tax avoidance and tax evasion.

      Uber is attempting to reduce its costs illegally.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re: Good by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence for this? And what are the taxi companies supposedly getting out of those alleged bribes?

      They are a part of the alien lizard people/muslim atheist/ZOG conspiracy. They don't need a reason other than being evil.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Other news by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    In other news.. water is wet.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. 7 billion people say 'duh' by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    And 7 billion people say 'duh' (or whatever 'duh' is in their respective languages - please educate me what duh is in your language).

    I think the whole world knew they were a transport company not a digital company. They've just been trying to use loopholes to avoid being regulated.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Pay up by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Businesses don't tend to last very long paying more than necessary in wages or taxes.

    That's not a valid excuse for paying less than required/necessary.

    1. Re:Pay up by nasch · · Score: 1

      Certainly. Paying as little as (legally) possible is general practice. Violating labor and tax laws should result in fines and/or jail time.

  7. Who knew? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    What are the chances a taxi company would be considered a transportation company?

    The mind boggles at such a concept.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. Uber compared to private hire / radio cabs by timmyf2371 · · Score: 2

    I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).

    Private hire / radio cabs:

    - Operate on a pre-booked basis only (you cannot stop one in the street).
    - Are booked by speaking to an operator, who co-ordinates the drivers affiliated with their firm.
    - Comes to you and the driver gives you a call to let you know he has arrived.

    It seems that Uber's technology largely replaces the role of the operator. Their business model is hardly new or unique (in the UK and Europe), and their automation of part of the process, using an app and some servers, is to be applauded but doesn't negate the fact that they are simply a big private hire firm.

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    1. Re:Uber compared to private hire / radio cabs by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).

      Private hire / radio cabs:

      In some localities, they did operate under those rules although they were usually meant for town cars and limos but made no actual distinction between car models. What happened in Seattle anyway is that the localities made new laws that said such businesses could not have a fleet of more than 300 cars, which prevented Uber/Lyft/etc from operating as normal.

  9. Strange ideas by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words....government finds a way to get in and mess up something that has been innovative, proven popular and successful.

    You mean a company that has been losing money at a clip of $500 million every month with no signs of profitability even in the face of ignoring the law to save money and grow. Yeah, SUPER successful... [/sarcasm]

    Good thing govt wasn't this bad a 100 or so years ago....we'd otherwise still have a thriving buggy whip industry.

    Peculiar view of how wonderful the world was 100 years ago. 100 years women weren't allowed to vote, minorities (particularly blacks) were subject to Jim Crow laws which wouldn't end for another 50 years, the Fair Labor Standards Act wouldn't be passed for another 20 years, etc.

    This notion that government is always bad is in stark denial of reality.

    1. Re:Strange ideas by Maritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This notion that government is always bad is in stark denial of reality.

      When all you have is a libertarian hammer, every problem looks like a government nail.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:Strange ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have never understood this mindset, about how life would be paradise in the Gilded Age, which Libertarians talk about.

      Do you want to live in a company town, and know the real meaning of "fired" when upon losing your job, they burn your house down? Or go back to a life where poverty is considered criminal, and if you wind up on the streets, you wind up in jail? How about debtors prisons when you get sick, insurance denies coverage, and you get stuck with a six digit bill? Or you get hauled off and shot because the Pinkertons think you are a union advocate?

      Yep, that is quite a way to envision the US becoming. Times would be different though, if that wish came true. In the past, the down-and-out might wind up on farms or just go in the wilderness. These days, they would realize they have zero hope, and wind up turning into what people in Arab nations have been... radicals just needing a leader with extremist ideology, and when (not if) that brutal leader surfaces now you have a constant insurgence to take care of, which no amount of military spending can stop. Giving people no hope is a perfect petri dish for another Al-Queda, Daesh, Nazi Party, or another terrorist group to form and thrive.

    3. Re:Strange ideas by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I have never understood this mindset, about how life would be paradise in the Gilded Age, which Libertarians talk about.

      The thing is, it was pretty much like paradise. If you were rich. As a member of (say) the aristocracy in Victorian England, you could do pretty much what you wanted.

      Libertarians always assume they would have been one of the millionaires, not somebody born into back-breaking poverty and condemned to die there too.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. But, it's SHARING. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    But all of the hipsters keep telling me we're in a "sharing economy," now. How can it be a transportation company if they're just facilitating people sharing with each other.

    Also, let me share some vomit at the absurd mis-use of that word.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Re:Most courts conceal their legislature by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

    Now try again in English.

  12. Principles by sjbe · · Score: 1

    When all you have is a libertarian hammer, every problem looks like a government nail.

    Truer words have rarely been said. The notion of keeping government out of things were it isn't competent or helpful is a very reasonable principle. Problem is that like everything else some people take it too far - basically to the point of being a religion.

    Governments are not always bad nor are they always good
    Governments can be a force for positive change if carefully watched
    Governments will be a force for terrible things if not carefully watched
    There are some things governments do better than the private sector and vice versa
    The government is necessary and competent for FAR more than just policing and contract enforcement
    The private sector is generally terrible at doing anything that does not or should not involve a short term profit motive
    Raising taxes is sometimes necessary and proper and beneficial to society. To pretend otherwise is just naked greed.
    Freedom doesn't mean the absence of government.

  13. Weather baloon by hrimhari · · Score: 1

    They considered a few other options to classify Uber, like a mid-sized sedan, swamp gas, camera smudge, or man in ape suit.

    --
    http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
  14. For frequent travelers, this is bad news by burhop · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a frequent traveler, this is bad news.

    In the past, I've always used taxis. They can be hard to get, often late, don't keep up with the technology, often require cash (despite some laws that require them to take credit cards). Obviously, some places are better than others due to any number of factors but I don't always get to choose where I go.

    Using an app to get a ride (I use Lyft when I can) is so much easier. You know the cost up front, when the driver will be there, and can even see where they are on the map. The desire to get high marks from passengers results in nice clean cars, cellphone chargers, and politeness (OK, not all the time, but I have a really easy way to report back to the company if they are bad).

    And then the price is better. Sure, the difference is not going to make or break a customer or company but these things add up in a budget.

    While I see the point of taxis being regulated in the same way as other drivers, the reality will be that a bunch of slowly changing regulations that will cripple being able to have a quick, inexpensive, and pleasant ride just to support an old horse drawn buggy system.

    1. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's nice that you want all of that, but what you want isn't really all that important to society. It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. Of course it's cheaper to take a Uber than a taxi: They don't pay the same taxes and fees that taxi companies pay, they don't pay their "employees" anywhere near what taxi companies pay, and they're fueled by dot-com bullshit money. While you make a great case for your own convenience, you have ignored the needs of everybody else involved in your (selfish) decisions.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by burhop · · Score: 1

      It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. .

      Totally agree. The problem is the playing field is tilted on both sides of the argument. Pick a country or city and look up its taxi regulations. They are often tilted in favor of special interests (like large taxi cab companies).

      You are right that I should be more altruistic. I'll work on that.

    3. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by hawk · · Score: 1

      > Pick a country or city and look up its taxi
      >regulations. They are often tilted in favor of special
      >interests (like large taxi cab companies).

      That is demonstrably incorrect, at lest in the US: there is no "often" nor "tilt"; the very *purpose* of "tai regulation" is to keep new taxi companies from entering the business.

      OK, a *bit* of consumer protection actually comes in, like insurance requirements and background checks, from which is *insane* to let a new entrant have an exception.

      hawk

    4. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Oh bullshit. The purpose of MOST taxi regulations is safety. Things like making sure you have qualified drivers (not people convicted of FELONY DWI and reckless driving like Uber has been shown to have), the cars are safe, metering is fair, driver is properly insured, etc. The only way those regulations 'keep new companies from entering the business' is if the 'new company' is unable to provide qualified drivers in safe cars charging a fair rate (ie, Uber). In MOST places those are the ONLY regulations.

      The only regulations that 'limit' anything are medallion systems, like in NYC. And the purpose there is not to limit COMPANIES, it is to limit CABS. There are literally thousands of cab 'companies' in NYC. And all one has to do to find out why limiting cabs is a good idea is a little research into what conditions were like before those regulations. People being run over by cabbies trying to beat a competitor to a fare. Cabbies with someone to flag down competitors to tie them up without actually using the cab. Idle cabs clogging the streets. Drivers working extremely long hours, in poorly maintained cabs, because they are unable to get enough business because of the glut of cabs. And, here is a surprise, all those things sound EXACTLY like stuff Uber has done.

    5. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Using an app to get a taxi does not change the fact that it is a taxi.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    6. Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news by hawk · · Score: 1

      That just isn't true.

      Check with any competent (rather than movement) antitrust economist, or a lawyer involved in such regulation who is welling to tell you about reality rather than the party line.

      There is more total profit in a monopoly than a duopoly, and in a duopoly than a triopoly, and so forth. The incumbents don't simply welcome, but invite expensive regulation that makes it to expensive for new players to enter, keeping up their "economic profits".

      This phenomenon is the primary reason for the heavy regulation of taxis in most cities of any size. Consumer protection is the window dressing and political cover.

      Similarly for cable monopolies and (of all things) hair dressers in many locales (in DC, for example, to braid hair many hours of the cosmetologists chemical training is required, just to keep them out).

      A couple of decades ago, when I was younger and more foolish, I actually butted heads to get what turned out to be the first taxi/limo license issued in Clark County (Las Vegas) in three decades. Not just foolish, but naive: maybe five years earlier, certainly ten, I would not have survived the experience. Most likely an accident, but possibly plain violence, or maybe disappeared into the desert.

      But what do I know; I'm just trained in antirust law and antitrust economics . . .

      hawk, j.d., ph.d., etc.

  15. london knowledge test is a good idea and GPS boys by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    london knowledge test is a good idea and GPS boys are clueless + the GPS info is off at time like have you turn the wrong way down a road.

  16. For those that think this is bad by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps a non-US company should ognore the laws in the US. E.g selling beer to people looking at the age limit in the country of origin. ABInBev would be a nice start

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  17. Uber is buying market share and breaking laws by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is the RULES themselves that need changing...break the monopolies that the taxi companies have had all these years, and force the entrenched companies to compete, and perhaps we'd see marked improvement on the taxis that are available.....

    Maybe they do need to change. Uber doesn't get the right to decide that unilaterally. You don't tear down a fence unless you understand why it was built in the first place. If Uber wants to lobby to change the laws to something (hopefully) better I have no problem with that.

    I mean because right now, a taxi cannot compete on cleanliness, promptness or price with Uber. They have no incentive to at this time.

    Uber is losing money a breathtaking pace (hundreds of millions per month) so let's not pretend that Uber is selling their services for more than they actually cost to provide. I can provide great service for a while at less than it costs but sooner or later that has to end. Uber is well funded but it's not clear they are actually more economically efficient.

  18. Re:Most courts conceal their legislature by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Now try again in English.

    something something Freeman on the land something something

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it