8 ms·

French court orders Uber to pay €1.2M to taxi firm

37 points by flexie 11y ago

protomyth 11y ago
You would think, if you were being honest about it, that you could build into your app a "checkin at my garage" function that would allow you to prove that after each fair your driver followed the law and went back to their garage.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Or you could just pay the tax for not following the law. I don't see how disobeying the law is any more dishonest than following it, the courts are going to tax you for it but as long as you pay there shouldn't be any problems.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    So, as long as I have the cash, breaking the law isn't an issue for you?
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      That's the point of fines, you pay what is essentially a tax for your behaviour. Morality is a whole different thing, I for one don't find it immoral for a driver to pick up passengers without stopping at the garage first. Anyway, it's called civil disobedience. I'd have though HN would be the last place to condemn that.
      - thetrb 11y ago
        Are you seriously calling an attempt of Uber to bypass French laws for financial gain "civil disobedience"?
        ryanlol 11y ago
        Because that's exactly what it is? This might be different if the law in question wasn't utterly ridiculous.
  - maus42 11y ago
    Because of these people, sensible countries adjust the amount of fine based on the wrongdoer's income.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Which I would assume France is also doing.
- adevine 11y ago
  This law is beyond stupid. So if the driver drops off a fare, and then checks their app, and immediately sees a request for a ride nearby, instead of going to pick up that rider, they have to go BACK to the garage?
  - legulere 11y ago
    Yes, because they're not allowed to offer a taxi service. If they want to do that, they have to follow the regulations of taxi services. But that's not in uber's interest, because they want a monopoly on the market.
fixermark 11y ago
As an American, it always seems odd to me to see these significant payouts to what appear to be private organizations (in this case the National Union of Taxis, in previous cases with Amazon the French Bookseller's Union [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-shipping-costing-1000-per-day-in-france/] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-ship...) for violation of public law.
- hbbio 11y ago
  For the record, the Uber fine (which I don't approve) is nothing compared to the BNP fine imposed by the U.S. cf. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-idUSKBN0F52HA20140701 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-idU...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - dustinmr 11y ago
    And for the record, if we were talking about Uber having driven the Paris terrorists to their drop off, this would be a valid comparison. But that's not what we're talking about, and its not.
    - oh_sigh 11y ago
      That wouldn't even be close to the situation. The equivalent would be if uber, at the highest levels, reached out to terrorist networks and helped them get from compound to compound.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- roel_v 11y ago
  Huh? What do you call punitive damages, then?
- pmilot 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
khgvljhkb 11y ago
Just FYI, 'mn' means million. Had not seen it shortened like that before.
kennydude 11y ago
> head back to their garages after each fare What an odd rule in general
- sithadmin 11y ago
  Protectionism at its finest.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    In the bigger picture, no one benefits from protecting a failed business model. In the long run it even hurts the dinosaurs being protected.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  You would think Parisians would oppose that since it increases the distance traveled by the vehicles which ramps up emissions for literally no good reason at all.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Taxi regulations where added for a host of really good reasons. This 'rule' is likely an exception for non Taxi companies which Uber is abusing. As to pollution, it's common for taxi's to circulate on public roads while waiting for a fair. So, forcing people to go park may be better from a pollution standpoint.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      In my experience (unless weather is a factor) most taxi's will park where fares may show up and wait with the engine off, but even if they leave it running idle, idle still uses much less fuel than traveling to the given home, which could be literally anywhere in comparison to where the vehicle is when it drops off a fare, or goes to where a fare may be found.
      - sheepdestroyer 11y ago
SRasch 11y ago
Okay, well, let's compare. Uber's violation: possibly not informing their drivers of the hilarious law of having to drive back to your garage after every trip. National Union of Taxis violation: - Instigating and supporting violence in Paris this summer, cars where set on fire and passengers attacked. - Supporting ongoing a violent rampage that yesterdat blocked a highway, threw tires at innocent drivers and got into a fistfight with the police. When asked how long the violent rampage will go on this summer, their president commented: "This will go on indefinitely, at least tonight and tomorrow." http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-protests/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-pr... In the cosmic order of right and wrong, it seems to me more appropriate that Uber get their money back, and National Taxi Union might belong behind bars rather than driving passengers.
- legulere 11y ago
  Or if you want to see the greater picture: Uber's violation: trying to kill a whole industry by making people act illegally, while also taking 20% of their revenue. National Union of Taxis violation: trying to not have the lives of the members ruined because an american company thinks it can get rich through illegal behaviour.
  - SRasch 11y ago
    I understand your point of view, but wouldn't you agree that the The National Taxi Union's use of violence supersedes their motivations, whatever it may be? If it was the other way around, if it was Uber who attacked passengers, blocked highways and threw fiery tires at the Taxi Drivers. And The National Taxi Union were breaking the drive-back-to-your garage law. -> Then it seems to me that Uber would be the thugs of the two, regardless of who I support. Whether you intellectually think the Taxi companies deserve protection from competition, it still seems that the National Taxi Union are the thugs here.
belorn 11y ago
Was this law something that existed in isolation or part of a long list that regulate the taxi market? In contrast to US, courts in Europe put more weight on the intent of the law makers than the law text itself, but the description in the article does not seem to cover that angle.
jokoon 11y ago
Also heard there still is some shady taxi company, named G7, that has an almost monopoly of the french taxi market. Not to defend Uber, but I still don't believe you can solve anti-liberal policies by just breaking everything in a niche market like this one, and pretend it's for the sake of progress. Also, the day Uber rides get taxed like all other taxis, and end up costing as much because they align with french policies, I'm sure Uber will quickly vanish. Many french medias already talk about the uberisation of society. I don't know if that's already the case in other places. But I think it's totally normal to see people getting angry at an american company who makes profit thanks to an economic model which is not really compatible. There is already a lot of talk and disagreement over inequality, so in my mind, it's again normal for people to relate this to be another form of capitalistic looting.

37 points by flexie 11y ago

You would think, if you were being honest about it, that you could build into your app a "checkin at my garage" function that would allow you to prove that after each fair your driver followed the law and went back to their garage.

ryanlol 11y ago
Or you could just pay the tax for not following the law. I don't see how disobeying the law is any more dishonest than following it, the courts are going to tax you for it but as long as you pay there shouldn't be any problems.
- protomyth 11y ago
  So, as long as I have the cash, breaking the law isn't an issue for you?
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    That's the point of fines, you pay what is essentially a tax for your behaviour. Morality is a whole different thing, I for one don't find it immoral for a driver to pick up passengers without stopping at the garage first. Anyway, it's called civil disobedience. I'd have though HN would be the last place to condemn that.
    - thetrb 11y ago
      Are you seriously calling an attempt of Uber to bypass French laws for financial gain "civil disobedience"?
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        Because that's exactly what it is? This might be different if the law in question wasn't utterly ridiculous.
- maus42 11y ago
  Because of these people, sensible countries adjust the amount of fine based on the wrongdoer's income.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Which I would assume France is also doing.
adevine 11y ago
This law is beyond stupid. So if the driver drops off a fare, and then checks their app, and immediately sees a request for a ride nearby, instead of going to pick up that rider, they have to go BACK to the garage?
- legulere 11y ago
  Yes, because they're not allowed to offer a taxi service. If they want to do that, they have to follow the regulations of taxi services. But that's not in uber's interest, because they want a monopoly on the market.

fixermark 11y ago

As an American, it always seems odd to me to see these significant payouts to what appear to be private organizations (in this case the National Union of Taxis, in previous cases with Amazon the French Bookseller's Union [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-shipping-costing-1000-per-day-in-france/] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-ship...) for violation of public law.

hbbio 11y ago
For the record, the Uber fine (which I don't approve) is nothing compared to the BNP fine imposed by the U.S. cf. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-idUSKBN0F52HA20140701 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-idU...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dustinmr 11y ago
  And for the record, if we were talking about Uber having driven the Paris terrorists to their drop off, this would be a valid comparison. But that's not what we're talking about, and its not.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    That wouldn't even be close to the situation. The equivalent would be if uber, at the highest levels, reached out to terrorist networks and helped them get from compound to compound.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
roel_v 11y ago
Huh? What do you call punitive damages, then?
pmilot 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

khgvljhkb 11y ago

Just FYI, 'mn' means million. Had not seen it shortened like that before.

kennydude 11y ago

> head back to their garages after each fare What an odd rule in general

sithadmin 11y ago
Protectionism at its finest.
- imglorp 11y ago
  In the bigger picture, no one benefits from protecting a failed business model. In the long run it even hurts the dinosaurs being protected.
FussyZeus 11y ago
You would think Parisians would oppose that since it increases the distance traveled by the vehicles which ramps up emissions for literally no good reason at all.
- Retric 11y ago
  Taxi regulations where added for a host of really good reasons. This 'rule' is likely an exception for non Taxi companies which Uber is abusing. As to pollution, it's common for taxi's to circulate on public roads while waiting for a fair. So, forcing people to go park may be better from a pollution standpoint.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    In my experience (unless weather is a factor) most taxi's will park where fares may show up and wait with the engine off, but even if they leave it running idle, idle still uses much less fuel than traveling to the given home, which could be literally anywhere in comparison to where the vehicle is when it drops off a fare, or goes to where a fare may be found.
    - sheepdestroyer 11y ago

SRasch 11y ago

Okay, well, let's compare. Uber's violation: possibly not informing their drivers of the hilarious law of having to drive back to your garage after every trip. National Union of Taxis violation: - Instigating and supporting violence in Paris this summer, cars where set on fire and passengers attacked. - Supporting ongoing a violent rampage that yesterdat blocked a highway, threw tires at innocent drivers and got into a fistfight with the police. When asked how long the violent rampage will go on this summer, their president commented: "This will go on indefinitely, at least tonight and tomorrow." http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-protests/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-pr... In the cosmic order of right and wrong, it seems to me more appropriate that Uber get their money back, and National Taxi Union might belong behind bars rather than driving passengers.

legulere 11y ago
Or if you want to see the greater picture: Uber's violation: trying to kill a whole industry by making people act illegally, while also taking 20% of their revenue. National Union of Taxis violation: trying to not have the lives of the members ruined because an american company thinks it can get rich through illegal behaviour.
- SRasch 11y ago
  I understand your point of view, but wouldn't you agree that the The National Taxi Union's use of violence supersedes their motivations, whatever it may be? If it was the other way around, if it was Uber who attacked passengers, blocked highways and threw fiery tires at the Taxi Drivers. And The National Taxi Union were breaking the drive-back-to-your garage law. -> Then it seems to me that Uber would be the thugs of the two, regardless of who I support. Whether you intellectually think the Taxi companies deserve protection from competition, it still seems that the National Taxi Union are the thugs here.

belorn 11y ago

Was this law something that existed in isolation or part of a long list that regulate the taxi market? In contrast to US, courts in Europe put more weight on the intent of the law makers than the law text itself, but the description in the article does not seem to cover that angle.

jokoon 11y ago

Also heard there still is some shady taxi company, named G7, that has an almost monopoly of the french taxi market. Not to defend Uber, but I still don't believe you can solve anti-liberal policies by just breaking everything in a niche market like this one, and pretend it's for the sake of progress. Also, the day Uber rides get taxed like all other taxis, and end up costing as much because they align with french policies, I'm sure Uber will quickly vanish. Many french medias already talk about the uberisation of society. I don't know if that's already the case in other places. But I think it's totally normal to see people getting angry at an american company who makes profit thanks to an economic model which is not really compatible. There is already a lot of talk and disagreement over inequality, so in my mind, it's again normal for people to relate this to be another form of capitalistic looting.