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.

20 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 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.
    6. 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...
    7. 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"?

    8. 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
    9. 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
  2. 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 nasch · · Score: 2

      Whoosh!

  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Re:Most courts conceal their legislature by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

    Now try again in English.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.