13 ms·

Uber banned in all of Italy

128 points by thewhitetulip 10y ago

lend000 10y ago
Appalling. Hating on Uber is popular right now for good reasons, but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry (which goes beyond Uber). Is there any information as to whether this affects Lyft? > after a judge ruled Friday that it created "unfair competition" And in the linked Reuter's article: > The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations. Italy's economic troubles should come as no surprise.
- pyrale 10y ago
  > but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Taxis are therefore mostly a comodity for affluent people : most never use them. Uber is neither important nor a progress in terms of mass transportation.
  - handedness 10y ago
    > In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Not in Italy, you don't. In no developed nation have I ever found public transportation as unreliable as I have in Italy, and in that I'm including northern Italy.
    - rekshaw 10y ago
      Surface transport maybe, metro is very reliable (Milan)
      - handedness 10y ago
        Not, for example, when they decide to run all of the trains in one direction only, yet neglect to update the schedules displayed on screen in the stations, so anyone looking to head the other direction is stranded for an indeterminate of time. (If the surface transportation was any good, that wouldn't have been such a big problem.) Milan has as many problems as anywhere else in Italy, and it's not immune from their insane strikes, either.
  - nkkollaw 10y ago
    > In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Hard to generalize. In Italy public trasportation in most cities—even major ones—is absolutely horrible. In Florence, it takes me 45 minutes to get anywhere by bus instead of 15 by car, some areas are not served at all, and most buses don't run after working hours or 10PM at the most. Buses are often late, overcrowded, and many (most?) without air conditioning with 40C in the summer.
- Markoff 10y ago
  and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws? there are taxi aggregator apps where you can order really from your phone one of dozen LEGAL taxi services in your city without rush hour bullshit fee and other crap Uber is pulling off only thing to be thankful to Uber for is making taxi app, which would happen anyway without them, their prices are not that low compared to taxi, they can't compete with European public transport, but they keep breaking law and have unfair advantage
  - lend000 10y ago
    > and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws? Low prices? Better services? More reliability and accessibility? Which laws are they breaking, except the ones that grant taxis an unfair monopoly? > they can't compete with European public transport Then how are they in business and why do they need to be banned? As other commenters have said, Italy's public transportation is among the worst on the continent.
TwoBit 10y ago
Banned due to unfair competition. I think a more accurate reason would be: banned due to competition.
hitr 10y ago
Banned for unfair competition!!.So that means taxi operators could not compete for price and may be convenience offered by Uber. isn't that bad for the consumers? May be someone from Italy can comment?
- Markoff 10y ago
  no, that means that taxi companies must pay plenty of fees to meet law requirements which in the end affect price for customer Uber is ignoring laws and don't pay these fees and taxes and SOMETIMES is able to offer cheaper ride than taxi, while in rush hour it cost more than taxi i can easily day from comments here who is American without clue about Europe and who is European pissed about some American corporation which is ignoring any laws and pretending they are bringing some progress, like we don't have taxi woods without them, F Uber
  - Markoff 10y ago
    ...easily see... ...taxi apps...
itsmemattchung 10y ago
Although I no longer ride Uber, I'm shocked that the service is banned from the entire country: on one hand, I'm glad Uber is being reprimanded for constantly side stepping laws, but I'm worried that other services (i.e. Lyft) will be banned too; in this instance, Uber was banned (it appears) due to fear of competition, not for breaking laws.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, if Über wants to operate in Italy, it just has to follow the local laws like everyone. I am fed up of corporations that think otherwise.
  - Markoff 10y ago
    i am in same position my fellow European it's funny how are Americans here defending Uber breaking laws in Europe, where most people agree with regulating it so they won't break laws and have unfair advantage over taxi, any idiot can drive illegally car and charge less than company which need surcharge taxi insurance, taxi license, car of specific color and standard,etc. now i am not big fan of taxi (public transport FTW) and still think most of the taxi drivers are thieves if given opportunity, but thanks to taxi apps I don't need to worries about it, not sure where some completely illegal service like Uber fit here
register 10y ago
I see a great degree of superficiality in all comments. Uber has been banned for breaking the italian law, period. That the law for taxi and similar services might be too much restrictive and could be improved in favour of the market is a completely different matter. In Italy there are precise rules regarding where and how you can pick up passengers and Uber is violating them. This is why it was banned. The sentence even states this explicitly: that the duty of the magister is to apply the current law and not the enter in the merits of how it could be improved for the benefit of the market. Did anybody read the sentence before commenting? Uber has been also banned in Berlin and Amburg and I haven't seen any similar comment here. I would be very curios to understand why.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  > And in fact they have not been banned: they have been given 10 days to adjust to the italian regulations ELSE they will be banned. Can you share the source for this information? I've been having trouble finding out any details about why they were banned, and the articles I've read just say they were banned, not that they have 10 days to comply. The primary English source seems to be a brief Reuters article with no details.
  - register 10y ago
    You are right, I misunderstood what I read. They have been given 10 days to comply and not to adjust. I have amended my comment.
    - Pyxl101 10y ago
      It is a reasonable assumption. I would hope that if Uber complies with whatever laws they were found to be violating, that they could continue operating. However, whether that's a plausible outcome depends on the reason why they're banned. If the Italian court determined that the "ease of hailing rides through a smartphone app" was the reason why competition was "unfair" (just to make something up - I haven't been able to discover the actual reason), then there's no real way for them to come into compliance.
- 10y ago
Pyxl101 10y ago
What aspect of the law did they break? I can't find any meaningful details in the articles. They all just say that Uber was banned for "unfair competition". The primary source of the English articles seems to be a Reuters wire with scant details. Anyone know more or have a link? (Including to something in Italian?) Are Italian court transcripts generally available online? If this was in the US, I'd normally try to find and read the court docket.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, meaning how people are picked up, drivers certified, security in the cars and so on. Not following the local laws that everyone else follows, makes it unfair.
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    My question is, what aspect of the law did they break? I'd like to know the details. The articles in English have few real details about what happened.
    - Markoff 10y ago
      i guess you must have taxi license to transport people in car, in my country taxi cars must have also Surfside insurance, Uber cars have none of these so they have unfair advantage which is funny considering they are in peak hour more expensive than taxi with flat rate prices (only difference is day vs night)
    - yabatopia 10y ago
      You're not looking for details, you're asking for details. Did you try Google Italy or Google Translate to translate Italian articles into English?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
notlambda 10y ago
Italian here, according to the driver of the taxi i'm in right now Uber is unfair because their drivers don't have to buy taxi licenses(over 200k Euros each in major cities). The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.
- briandear 10y ago
  So harm everyone by reducing competition in order to subsidize people that spend €200k on a license? That doesn't benefit the public, that benefits a tiny special interest at the expense of everyone else. I spend more money on a taxi, I spend less money at the restaurant. And get less value from my money than I should. So we 'protect' taxis but what about struggling restaurant owners (or other shops) that lose money because taxis aren't subject to competition? Who cries for them?
- bbrazil 10y ago
  That sounds like how Ireland used to work, before 2000 when things were deregulated. We've gone from a shortage of taxis, to an overabundance. When Uber launched, it wasn't interesting as our taxi system (which Uber appears to comply with the laws of) already works.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    Same here in Lithuania - there were already two major apps providing the same service when Uber launched, the only difference is Uber is more expensive - I assume the cars are nicer, but most taxis here are pretty well maintained, so it's not really a selling point.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Do you happen to know: do black car services in Italy normally have to buy taxi licenses? I'm curious because black car services (such as limousines and black towncar services) generally do not need taxi licenses in the US. A taxi license is only needed for hailing rides on the street, not for picking someone up by prior reservation. The Uber service provides a variety of different kinds of cars, some which operate more like limos while others operate like taxis (they even have medallioned taxis in some cities). Edit: Thanks! Interesting to know how standards and norms vary by country in this area. It will be fascinating to see how transport evolves over the next decade.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sidcool 10y ago
Uber is super convenient for customers. But it indulges in illegal and spurious activities. And most customers will not care about the law of the taxi drivers if something's convenient to them. On the flip side taxi drivers won't improve their service.
- Markoff 10y ago
  how is Uber more convenient than any other taxi app? oh yeah, showing lower misleading price for ride than real (got fine for that in my country already) and peak hour nonsense is very convenient for customer, no thanks, you can keep that stuff in US
  - briandear 10y ago
    Why is the surge pricing "nonsense?" It's basic supply and demand and it prevents shortages. If it's peak hour and I must get to a meeting and someone else is just going shopping, I would be willing to pay more so I am not late. I think the shopper is willing to pay less to go on the trip at a different time. Supply and demand. Impossible to ignore. Either high demand leads to high prices or high demand leads to shortages if prices were constrained. Since you said "you can keep that stuff in US," I have to ask: does supply and demand work differently in your country? It would seem, based of the state of many European economies (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, as examples,) that perhaps they need more of that free market competition "stuff" and much less government and taxes.
    - Markoff 10y ago
      we have fixed prices for taxi, so i know how much i will pay and ride cost much less than Uber with surge pricing which is reason nobody really cares about Uber, you can conveniently order taxi through the app, pay online and leave review, not sure why would i need Uber for this, they are rarely cheaper than legal taxi so no thanks i support law abiding companies
      - icebraining 10y ago
squarefoot 10y ago
What they call "unfair competition" is nothing more than not having to pay for a taxi service license that should not be sold that high in the first place because they're assigned from local municipalities after the driver passes an exam to get the appropriate driving license and other stuff. Unfortunately taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge disproportion between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers when retiring sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K. Of course license scarcity and the lack of competition means higher fares for customers and higher profits for drivers. That is ultimately the only one reason why they acted against Uber like they did against other services such as the NCC (rent with driver) which is a workaround to trick the law and get a taxi service disguised as a car rent.
- Markoff 10y ago
  so Uber should be allow to break the laws to offer lower prices (which is not even true in rush hour), is this what you propose? why not open restaurant chain recycling leftovers from other customers, storing all ingredients without fridge on floor of kitchen with some rats running around BUT hey I am American corporation bringing you cheap food and don't dare to tell me I am unfair competition compared to those dumb local restaurants meeting local hygiene rules
  - briandear 10y ago
    If people buying the food like the food and know what they're getting, then why should government be involved? Let the people spend their money how they want. If the Italian taxi industry is anything like the Venician gondoliers association, then this ruling has zero to do with safety and everything to do with protectionism.
    - Markoff 10y ago
      if you don't like the law then vote for someone who will change it, not just break it
    - Sacho 10y ago
tici_88 10y ago
The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how 'cool' you are considered to be. If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.
- rahimnathwani 10y ago
  "The law should apply equally to everyone" In this case, the law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Holders of existing taxi licenses actively lobby to restrict the issuance of additional licenses. This isn't new: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/milan-taxi-drivers-protest-against-increase-in-licences https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articl...
  - _joe 10y ago
    The solution to that is to allow more licences, and maybe to use those new licences to compensate current drivers for the loss of value of the licence they bought. Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else is respecting them is a completely different story. Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate outside of the law.
    - rahimnathwani 10y ago
      Yup
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    And Uber heavily subsidizes ride costs in an attempt to put competition out of business. Why do you favor one rent-seeking monopolist over another?
_joe 10y ago
Being from Italy, let me point out a few things: Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice. If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law. Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers. I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice. So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that. And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.
- jwilk 10y ago
  s/damping/dumping/?
  - _joe 10y ago
    heh, yes, just wrote this too early in the morning. Editing, thanks!
- mk89 10y ago
  It's a bit sad that things need to end up this way. Eventually things will change. However, things could have been handled differently, let's say with a proposal to these new companies to offer rides and adapt with the taxi-system in the country. Meaning: - taxi drivers need to have the highest priority and be sponsored as such (most of them paid for their license, and they MUST exist by law, because it's an essential service) - all drivers need to pass some screenings and keep it up-to-date (police, etc.) - all drivers need to pay taxes (because what they are doing right now is simply black-work) - security on Uber needs really to improve if you want to offer a public service, because as it is now, people can impersonate drivers (there are stories about this)
tluyben2 10y ago
While I understand and support that Uber must comply with local laws and that it is unfair to taxi drivers who paid 200k or whatever for a license (which is the case in most EU countries), I do would like to see Uber push for modernization because that will not happen with those local cab drivers. In countries where Uber is allowed, I can pick between a nice, clean car with a friendly driver or an old crappy vehicle with a grumpy, smelly driver. In Hong Kong UberX are mostly new Teslas driven by people who speak some English, while the local cabs are so old and decrapped I do not understand how they even are allowed on the road. And those are not exceptions. In Spain, where Uber is no more, I get in to cars, the drivers swear in Spanish (they do not speak English mostly) that the drive is too short, burps and then drives off. Again no exception: it happens only to us already a lot and we are polite people (maybe we should not be?). After that experience you have no recoarse to complain: with Uber you tap in the app and even get some or all money back. And drivers under a certain score drop off. With regular taxis it is fuck you very much for your money. So banning Uber is nice and all and logical but then the gov should at least demand of taxis to offer the same level: hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances, so even if we do not mention that all the rest should be at the same level. I know they cannot and that is why Uber breaking the law is needed; that is a sad thing. The client is king and that has been lost by traditional cabbies in Europe a long time ago.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  > hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances I mean, that's kind of the point. If customers want to be picked up in shiny Teslas that's ok. But it's only fair that they pay the actual cost of the ride. At present, Uber riders are being subsidised to the tune of $2bn per year [0]: that's a deeply anti-competitive business practice. [0] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unicorns-new-clothes/ https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic...
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Yes, that is why I say besides. If Ubers were more expensive than normal cabs I would still use Uber. However then I agree Uber would die as most people use it probably for the cheap prices.
SilverSlash 10y ago
Italy -> advanced economy -> lol
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  > Italy -> advanced economy -> lol Besides the fact that you phrased that like a 10-year-old, are you serious? Italy is the 3rd largest economy in the EU.
  - doktrin 10y ago
    > Italy is the 3rd largest economy in the EU. "advanced" and "largest" are related but not synonymous I don't want to defend the parents barb any further, so I'll just say this : there's a reason so many highly educated Italians - particular from the south - emigrate. The country suffers from brain drain on an epic scale because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities.
    - walterstucco 10y ago
      > because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities. no, it's because the culture is so 50 years behind the rest of the world that I don;t want to sit in a bar were people are still discussing about gay rights or gay marriage or abortion or adapting to an ever changing world or the "euro's faults", like there's really something to argue about it. I don;t want to live in a country of trained monkeys trying to set the clock 100 years back and talking about how better fascism was. That's why I left.
      - doktrin 10y ago
        > no, it's because the culture is so 50 years behind the rest of the world Aside from it being your personal experience, are you saying cultural fit is the primary reason for emigration?
        walterstucco 10y ago
nkkollaw 10y ago
I'm from Italy. This is really bad news. Uber's entrance into the market was a great opportunity to either change another awful law/system that's in place, or create a precedent by ruling to not apply the current law. Of course, they didn't do it. Currently, in order to be a taxi driver you have to pay a license, which costs up to €200,000 (from what I know). Since it would take too long, taxi drivers aren't obliged to give you a receipt. If you ask for one for tax purposes, they give you a piece of paper so that you can write off the expense, but they still don't have to report that to the government. How do they pay taxes? The association itself sets an estimate of how much they're supposed to make each month, that they then pay taxes on. This is many times less than what they actually make. It's a joke, unheard of for any other category (that I know of). Most importantly, taxis provide a horrible, horrible service. They're super-expensive, to the point of being ridiculous, and known to scam people by overcharging them many times the usual fare (tourists in particular, but not only tourists, I can speak of that). Public transportation in many cities is inadequate. Luckily, in many cities (including mine, Florence) they're now offering great car sharing services, where you can select a car near you from the app, and use it for ~€0.25/min. There are 3 different companies doing it, so the market is very healthy. I use it regularly, buses will take me to x in 45' for €1.20, using the car sharing service I can get there in 15' for €4. For comparison, a taxi ride would cost me €15-20. One thing I don't understand is that in Dublin, I had the impression that most Uber rides were taxi drivers—whom used both the taxi company dispatch system and Uber—and they said they'd make more money with Uber because their share was less than the taxi company's. Although I don't know much about this, I wonder if the same thing would be true in Italy. If you want to be a taxi driver, Uber would remove having to spend €200,000 to get started (which by the way sounds like a horrible investment to me, since after that you're stuck being a taxi driver). Of course, this isn't fair to those who paid that, but I wouldn't oppose the government buying those back (perhaps with tax credits?) and then change the law. Honestly, I wouldn't oppose those people just losing the money, since they don't seem to refund restaurateurs that close down because they open a McDonald's next door, small shops when a supermarket gets open next door, programmers that make less money because of outsourcing to India, factory workers whose factory closes down and moves to Poland. Mainly, this situation is not fair. Why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet? What's so special about taxi drivers? Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS, as I'm legally required to do?
rodionos 10y ago
> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations. This is going to replay in many other countries. It may look like a clash of the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled capitalism with the European model built on top of cross-subsidies and tighter regulations to support all kinds of safety nets. But it's not. To me it looks like a shift away from capital assets (e.g. annual licenses) toward per-per-use economics. If you think about it, there is nothing that prevents the Italian authorities to levy mileage-based fees on Uber to level the paying field.
SCdF 10y ago
I try to use Uber as little as possible. Ironically, the only time I was forced to use it was in Italy, because it turned out it was a public holiday, so no public transport (including taxis) were running.
ndr 10y ago
Italy's law is quite specific on the matter, to offer transportation as a business you're either a taxi or a rent-with-driver (Noleggio Con Conduncente or NCC in Italian). Taxi have their own finite licensing problem but NCC are easier to get. You still need a permit from the local Comune[0] and to abide to the rules. In exchange NCC vehicles can use the same fast lanes taxi can use. The most contested rule is that NCC are hired only for specific rides (eg form A to B, or for N hours) and they need to go back to the garage between rides. They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride, and the garage to be in the same Comune that gave the NCC permission. This clearly doesn't work well for Uber as it doesn't have any garage, nor it's willing to accept the suboptimal usage the go-back-to-garage is going to cause. Disclaimer: INAL, but I've talked to some Italian lawyers about this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune edit: formatting
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  So Italy's law is basically "be extremely inefficient and don't compete with political insiders". In the US we had similar rules enforced by armed men - don't compete with the Lucchese in the Bronx, the Genovese in Little Italy, etc. Clearly this system is working well for Italy. Maybe in the US we can end RICO and bring back the old system ruled by the capo di tutti capo. That could help boost our economy to Italian levels.
- awqrre 10y ago
  >They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride In Italy, do you also to print an e-bill before paying it online? That may be a bad analogy but it just seems wasteful to me.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
As usual, politicians kill a cheap, customer-friendly service to save an entrenched monopoly. If the horse cart owners were this smart, we never would have had the automobile revolution.
- zouhair 10y ago
  If Uber is what counts as progress, to hell with this progress.
zouhair 10y ago
Good. They should be banned wherever they don't pay taxes.

128 points by thewhitetulip 10y ago

Appalling. Hating on Uber is popular right now for good reasons, but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry (which goes beyond Uber). Is there any information as to whether this affects Lyft? > after a judge ruled Friday that it created "unfair competition" And in the linked Reuter's article: > The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations. Italy's economic troubles should come as no surprise.

pyrale 10y ago
> but don't let it distract from the important battle to modernize and disrupt an entrenched industry In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Taxis are therefore mostly a comodity for affluent people : most never use them. Uber is neither important nor a progress in terms of mass transportation.
- handedness 10y ago
  > In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Not in Italy, you don't. In no developed nation have I ever found public transportation as unreliable as I have in Italy, and in that I'm including northern Italy.
  - rekshaw 10y ago
    Surface transport maybe, metro is very reliable (Milan)
    - handedness 10y ago
      Not, for example, when they decide to run all of the trains in one direction only, yet neglect to update the schedules displayed on screen in the stations, so anyone looking to head the other direction is stranded for an indeterminate of time. (If the surface transportation was any good, that wouldn't have been such a big problem.) Milan has as many problems as anywhere else in Italy, and it's not immune from their insane strikes, either.
- nkkollaw 10y ago
  > In Europe, we actually have working public transportation. Hard to generalize. In Italy public trasportation in most cities—even major ones—is absolutely horrible. In Florence, it takes me 45 minutes to get anywhere by bus instead of 15 by car, some areas are not served at all, and most buses don't run after working hours or 10PM at the most. Buses are often late, overcrowded, and many (most?) without air conditioning with 40C in the summer.
Markoff 10y ago
and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws? there are taxi aggregator apps where you can order really from your phone one of dozen LEGAL taxi services in your city without rush hour bullshit fee and other crap Uber is pulling off only thing to be thankful to Uber for is making taxi app, which would happen anyway without them, their prices are not that low compared to taxi, they can't compete with European public transport, but they keep breaking law and have unfair advantage
- lend000 10y ago
  > and what exactly is Uber bringing to table except breaking the laws? Low prices? Better services? More reliability and accessibility? Which laws are they breaking, except the ones that grant taxis an unfair monopoly? > they can't compete with European public transport Then how are they in business and why do they need to be banned? As other commenters have said, Italy's public transportation is among the worst on the continent.

TwoBit 10y ago

Banned due to unfair competition. I think a more accurate reason would be: banned due to competition.

hitr 10y ago

Banned for unfair competition!!.So that means taxi operators could not compete for price and may be convenience offered by Uber. isn't that bad for the consumers? May be someone from Italy can comment?

Markoff 10y ago
no, that means that taxi companies must pay plenty of fees to meet law requirements which in the end affect price for customer Uber is ignoring laws and don't pay these fees and taxes and SOMETIMES is able to offer cheaper ride than taxi, while in rush hour it cost more than taxi i can easily day from comments here who is American without clue about Europe and who is European pissed about some American corporation which is ignoring any laws and pretending they are bringing some progress, like we don't have taxi woods without them, F Uber
- Markoff 10y ago
  ...easily see... ...taxi apps...

itsmemattchung 10y ago

Although I no longer ride Uber, I'm shocked that the service is banned from the entire country: on one hand, I'm glad Uber is being reprimanded for constantly side stepping laws, but I'm worried that other services (i.e. Lyft) will be banned too; in this instance, Uber was banned (it appears) due to fear of competition, not for breaking laws.

pjmlp 10y ago
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, if Über wants to operate in Italy, it just has to follow the local laws like everyone. I am fed up of corporations that think otherwise.
- Markoff 10y ago
  i am in same position my fellow European it's funny how are Americans here defending Uber breaking laws in Europe, where most people agree with regulating it so they won't break laws and have unfair advantage over taxi, any idiot can drive illegally car and charge less than company which need surcharge taxi insurance, taxi license, car of specific color and standard,etc. now i am not big fan of taxi (public transport FTW) and still think most of the taxi drivers are thieves if given opportunity, but thanks to taxi apps I don't need to worries about it, not sure where some completely illegal service like Uber fit here

I see a great degree of superficiality in all comments. Uber has been banned for breaking the italian law, period. That the law for taxi and similar services might be too much restrictive and could be improved in favour of the market is a completely different matter. In Italy there are precise rules regarding where and how you can pick up passengers and Uber is violating them. This is why it was banned. The sentence even states this explicitly: that the duty of the magister is to apply the current law and not the enter in the merits of how it could be improved for the benefit of the market. Did anybody read the sentence before commenting? Uber has been also banned in Berlin and Amburg and I haven't seen any similar comment here. I would be very curios to understand why.

Pyxl101 10y ago
> And in fact they have not been banned: they have been given 10 days to adjust to the italian regulations ELSE they will be banned. Can you share the source for this information? I've been having trouble finding out any details about why they were banned, and the articles I've read just say they were banned, not that they have 10 days to comply. The primary English source seems to be a brief Reuters article with no details.
- register 10y ago
  You are right, I misunderstood what I read. They have been given 10 days to comply and not to adjust. I have amended my comment.
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    It is a reasonable assumption. I would hope that if Uber complies with whatever laws they were found to be violating, that they could continue operating. However, whether that's a plausible outcome depends on the reason why they're banned. If the Italian court determined that the "ease of hailing rides through a smartphone app" was the reason why competition was "unfair" (just to make something up - I haven't been able to discover the actual reason), then there's no real way for them to come into compliance.
10y ago

Pyxl101 10y ago

What aspect of the law did they break? I can't find any meaningful details in the articles. They all just say that Uber was banned for "unfair competition". The primary source of the English articles seems to be a Reuters wire with scant details. Anyone know more or have a link? (Including to something in Italian?) Are Italian court transcripts generally available online? If this was in the US, I'd normally try to find and read the court docket.

pjmlp 10y ago
The Italian law specifically states how a service where people pay to be transported should work, meaning how people are picked up, drivers certified, security in the cars and so on. Not following the local laws that everyone else follows, makes it unfair.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  My question is, what aspect of the law did they break? I'd like to know the details. The articles in English have few real details about what happened.
  - Markoff 10y ago
    i guess you must have taxi license to transport people in car, in my country taxi cars must have also Surfside insurance, Uber cars have none of these so they have unfair advantage which is funny considering they are in peak hour more expensive than taxi with flat rate prices (only difference is day vs night)
  - yabatopia 10y ago
    You're not looking for details, you're asking for details. Did you try Google Italy or Google Translate to translate Italian articles into English?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

notlambda 10y ago

Italian here, according to the driver of the taxi i'm in right now Uber is unfair because their drivers don't have to buy taxi licenses(over 200k Euros each in major cities). The Italian economy is in a bad state and the government doesn't want thousands of taxi drivers without a job.

briandear 10y ago
So harm everyone by reducing competition in order to subsidize people that spend €200k on a license? That doesn't benefit the public, that benefits a tiny special interest at the expense of everyone else. I spend more money on a taxi, I spend less money at the restaurant. And get less value from my money than I should. So we 'protect' taxis but what about struggling restaurant owners (or other shops) that lose money because taxis aren't subject to competition? Who cries for them?
bbrazil 10y ago
That sounds like how Ireland used to work, before 2000 when things were deregulated. We've gone from a shortage of taxis, to an overabundance. When Uber launched, it wasn't interesting as our taxi system (which Uber appears to comply with the laws of) already works.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  Same here in Lithuania - there were already two major apps providing the same service when Uber launched, the only difference is Uber is more expensive - I assume the cars are nicer, but most taxis here are pretty well maintained, so it's not really a selling point.
Pyxl101 10y ago
Do you happen to know: do black car services in Italy normally have to buy taxi licenses? I'm curious because black car services (such as limousines and black towncar services) generally do not need taxi licenses in the US. A taxi license is only needed for hailing rides on the street, not for picking someone up by prior reservation. The Uber service provides a variety of different kinds of cars, some which operate more like limos while others operate like taxis (they even have medallioned taxis in some cities). Edit: Thanks! Interesting to know how standards and norms vary by country in this area. It will be fascinating to see how transport evolves over the next decade.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sidcool 10y ago

Uber is super convenient for customers. But it indulges in illegal and spurious activities. And most customers will not care about the law of the taxi drivers if something's convenient to them. On the flip side taxi drivers won't improve their service.

Markoff 10y ago
how is Uber more convenient than any other taxi app? oh yeah, showing lower misleading price for ride than real (got fine for that in my country already) and peak hour nonsense is very convenient for customer, no thanks, you can keep that stuff in US
- briandear 10y ago
  Why is the surge pricing "nonsense?" It's basic supply and demand and it prevents shortages. If it's peak hour and I must get to a meeting and someone else is just going shopping, I would be willing to pay more so I am not late. I think the shopper is willing to pay less to go on the trip at a different time. Supply and demand. Impossible to ignore. Either high demand leads to high prices or high demand leads to shortages if prices were constrained. Since you said "you can keep that stuff in US," I have to ask: does supply and demand work differently in your country? It would seem, based of the state of many European economies (France, Italy, Spain, Greece, as examples,) that perhaps they need more of that free market competition "stuff" and much less government and taxes.
  - Markoff 10y ago
    we have fixed prices for taxi, so i know how much i will pay and ride cost much less than Uber with surge pricing which is reason nobody really cares about Uber, you can conveniently order taxi through the app, pay online and leave review, not sure why would i need Uber for this, they are rarely cheaper than legal taxi so no thanks i support law abiding companies
    - icebraining 10y ago

squarefoot 10y ago

What they call "unfair competition" is nothing more than not having to pay for a taxi service license that should not be sold that high in the first place because they're assigned from local municipalities after the driver passes an exam to get the appropriate driving license and other stuff. Unfortunately taxi licenses are assigned very scarcely and the resulting huge disproportion between demand and offer creates a market in which old drivers when retiring sell their ones at absurd prices, that is, even over $200K. Of course license scarcity and the lack of competition means higher fares for customers and higher profits for drivers. That is ultimately the only one reason why they acted against Uber like they did against other services such as the NCC (rent with driver) which is a workaround to trick the law and get a taxi service disguised as a car rent.

Markoff 10y ago
so Uber should be allow to break the laws to offer lower prices (which is not even true in rush hour), is this what you propose? why not open restaurant chain recycling leftovers from other customers, storing all ingredients without fridge on floor of kitchen with some rats running around BUT hey I am American corporation bringing you cheap food and don't dare to tell me I am unfair competition compared to those dumb local restaurants meeting local hygiene rules
- briandear 10y ago
  If people buying the food like the food and know what they're getting, then why should government be involved? Let the people spend their money how they want. If the Italian taxi industry is anything like the Venician gondoliers association, then this ruling has zero to do with safety and everything to do with protectionism.
  - Markoff 10y ago
    if you don't like the law then vote for someone who will change it, not just break it
  - Sacho 10y ago

tici_88 10y ago

The law should apply equally to everyone, regardless of how 'cool' you are considered to be. If the law in Italy requires taxis and taxi-like services to to pay for certain operational licenses and to comply with certain government regulations, it is only fair that Uber and all other similar services should be expected to do the same. Uber does not pay or require their drivers to pay the licenses and comply with the regulations, hence the ruling.

rahimnathwani 10y ago
"The law should apply equally to everyone" In this case, the law doesn't apply equally to everyone. Holders of existing taxi licenses actively lobby to restrict the issuance of additional licenses. This isn't new: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articles/milan-taxi-drivers-protest-against-increase-in-licences https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/articl...
- _joe 10y ago
  The solution to that is to allow more licences, and maybe to use those new licences to compensate current drivers for the loss of value of the licence they bought. Allowing a corporation to just ignore existing regulations while everyone else is respecting them is a completely different story. Let me add: I have very little sympathy for the taxi drivers guild and their practices, but I don't think that's a good reason to allow Uber to operate outside of the law.
  - rahimnathwani 10y ago
    Yup
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  And Uber heavily subsidizes ride costs in an attempt to put competition out of business. Why do you favor one rent-seeking monopolist over another?

_joe 10y ago

Being from Italy, let me point out a few things: Frist of all: unfair competition can mean, for instance, a mega-multinational subsiding its riders costs to wipe out competition. That is dumping, a practice that is illegal in most advanced economies, and that Uber has been known to practice. If you don't have a taxi license, Italian law restricts the ways you can offer transportation. If you step outside of those boundaries, you are creating an unfair competition to taxi drivers that have e.g. to pay for the license or non-taxi services that operate within the boundaries of the law. Also: Uber was probably aware of the situation, to the point that some MPs tried to sneak in a "save Uber" amendment to an otherwise unrelated law, causing protests through the country from taxi drivers. I see people commenting that have clearly no information or any idea of how Italian economy works, and just go around throwing approximative judgements based on hearsay and prejudice. So let me state it out for you: Italian economy is surely burdened by anti-competitive practices and too many absurd regulations, but blocking a US multinational to repeatedly break the law and finance its services by price fixing is not an instance of that. And finally: in Italy it's impossible for a company to own taxi licences, so they are all privately-owned by the taxi driver. So Uber is, if you remove the price jacking, practically a way to siphon money from individual drivers to a large company.

jwilk 10y ago
s/damping/dumping/?
- _joe 10y ago
  heh, yes, just wrote this too early in the morning. Editing, thanks!
mk89 10y ago
It's a bit sad that things need to end up this way. Eventually things will change. However, things could have been handled differently, let's say with a proposal to these new companies to offer rides and adapt with the taxi-system in the country. Meaning: - taxi drivers need to have the highest priority and be sponsored as such (most of them paid for their license, and they MUST exist by law, because it's an essential service) - all drivers need to pass some screenings and keep it up-to-date (police, etc.) - all drivers need to pay taxes (because what they are doing right now is simply black-work) - security on Uber needs really to improve if you want to offer a public service, because as it is now, people can impersonate drivers (there are stories about this)

tluyben2 10y ago

While I understand and support that Uber must comply with local laws and that it is unfair to taxi drivers who paid 200k or whatever for a license (which is the case in most EU countries), I do would like to see Uber push for modernization because that will not happen with those local cab drivers. In countries where Uber is allowed, I can pick between a nice, clean car with a friendly driver or an old crappy vehicle with a grumpy, smelly driver. In Hong Kong UberX are mostly new Teslas driven by people who speak some English, while the local cabs are so old and decrapped I do not understand how they even are allowed on the road. And those are not exceptions. In Spain, where Uber is no more, I get in to cars, the drivers swear in Spanish (they do not speak English mostly) that the drive is too short, burps and then drives off. Again no exception: it happens only to us already a lot and we are polite people (maybe we should not be?). After that experience you have no recoarse to complain: with Uber you tap in the app and even get some or all money back. And drivers under a certain score drop off. With regular taxis it is fuck you very much for your money. So banning Uber is nice and all and logical but then the gov should at least demand of taxis to offer the same level: hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances, so even if we do not mention that all the rest should be at the same level. I know they cannot and that is why Uber breaking the law is needed; that is a sad thing. The client is king and that has been lost by traditional cabbies in Europe a long time ago.

soVeryTired 10y ago
> hell their prices are much higher than Uber as well in almost all instances I mean, that's kind of the point. If customers want to be picked up in shiny Teslas that's ok. But it's only fair that they pay the actual cost of the ride. At present, Uber riders are being subsidised to the tune of $2bn per year [0]: that's a deeply anti-competitive business practice. [0] https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unicorns-new-clothes/ https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unic...
- tluyben2 10y ago
  Yes, that is why I say besides. If Ubers were more expensive than normal cabs I would still use Uber. However then I agree Uber would die as most people use it probably for the cheap prices.

SilverSlash 10y ago

Italy -> advanced economy -> lol

nkkollaw 10y ago
> Italy -> advanced economy -> lol Besides the fact that you phrased that like a 10-year-old, are you serious? Italy is the 3rd largest economy in the EU.
- doktrin 10y ago
  > Italy is the 3rd largest economy in the EU. "advanced" and "largest" are related but not synonymous I don't want to defend the parents barb any further, so I'll just say this : there's a reason so many highly educated Italians - particular from the south - emigrate. The country suffers from brain drain on an epic scale because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities.
  - walterstucco 10y ago
    > because the local economy doesn't offer sufficient opportunities. no, it's because the culture is so 50 years behind the rest of the world that I don;t want to sit in a bar were people are still discussing about gay rights or gay marriage or abortion or adapting to an ever changing world or the "euro's faults", like there's really something to argue about it. I don;t want to live in a country of trained monkeys trying to set the clock 100 years back and talking about how better fascism was. That's why I left.
    - doktrin 10y ago
      > no, it's because the culture is so 50 years behind the rest of the world Aside from it being your personal experience, are you saying cultural fit is the primary reason for emigration?
      - walterstucco 10y ago

nkkollaw 10y ago

I'm from Italy. This is really bad news. Uber's entrance into the market was a great opportunity to either change another awful law/system that's in place, or create a precedent by ruling to not apply the current law. Of course, they didn't do it. Currently, in order to be a taxi driver you have to pay a license, which costs up to €200,000 (from what I know). Since it would take too long, taxi drivers aren't obliged to give you a receipt. If you ask for one for tax purposes, they give you a piece of paper so that you can write off the expense, but they still don't have to report that to the government. How do they pay taxes? The association itself sets an estimate of how much they're supposed to make each month, that they then pay taxes on. This is many times less than what they actually make. It's a joke, unheard of for any other category (that I know of). Most importantly, taxis provide a horrible, horrible service. They're super-expensive, to the point of being ridiculous, and known to scam people by overcharging them many times the usual fare (tourists in particular, but not only tourists, I can speak of that). Public transportation in many cities is inadequate. Luckily, in many cities (including mine, Florence) they're now offering great car sharing services, where you can select a car near you from the app, and use it for ~€0.25/min. There are 3 different companies doing it, so the market is very healthy. I use it regularly, buses will take me to x in 45' for €1.20, using the car sharing service I can get there in 15' for €4. For comparison, a taxi ride would cost me €15-20. One thing I don't understand is that in Dublin, I had the impression that most Uber rides were taxi drivers—whom used both the taxi company dispatch system and Uber—and they said they'd make more money with Uber because their share was less than the taxi company's. Although I don't know much about this, I wonder if the same thing would be true in Italy. If you want to be a taxi driver, Uber would remove having to spend €200,000 to get started (which by the way sounds like a horrible investment to me, since after that you're stuck being a taxi driver). Of course, this isn't fair to those who paid that, but I wouldn't oppose the government buying those back (perhaps with tax credits?) and then change the law. Honestly, I wouldn't oppose those people just losing the money, since they don't seem to refund restaurateurs that close down because they open a McDonald's next door, small shops when a supermarket gets open next door, programmers that make less money because of outsourcing to India, factory workers whose factory closes down and moves to Poland. Mainly, this situation is not fair. Why not add a limited-number restaurant license that costs 200,000, without which you can't open a restaurant, to protect local restaurants? Why not create a law where Italian companies MUST produce the goods they sold on Italian soil in Italy instead of China, to protect Italian factory workers? Why not create a law that each book published MUST be printed and available at all local libraries besides released as an ebook to protect local libraries from closing because of the internet? What's so special about taxi drivers? Why can taxi drivers pay taxes based on a random figure they themselves provide without proof, while even if I charge a client €1 I must issue a receipt, and then KEEP IT IN PAPER FOR 10 YEARS, as I'm legally required to do?

rodionos 10y ago

> The court ruled in favour of a suit filed by Italy's major traditional taxi associations. This is going to replay in many other countries. It may look like a clash of the Anglo-Saxon model of unbridled capitalism with the European model built on top of cross-subsidies and tighter regulations to support all kinds of safety nets. But it's not. To me it looks like a shift away from capital assets (e.g. annual licenses) toward per-per-use economics. If you think about it, there is nothing that prevents the Italian authorities to levy mileage-based fees on Uber to level the paying field.

SCdF 10y ago

I try to use Uber as little as possible. Ironically, the only time I was forced to use it was in Italy, because it turned out it was a public holiday, so no public transport (including taxis) were running.

ndr 10y ago

Italy's law is quite specific on the matter, to offer transportation as a business you're either a taxi or a rent-with-driver (Noleggio Con Conduncente or NCC in Italian). Taxi have their own finite licensing problem but NCC are easier to get. You still need a permit from the local Comune[0] and to abide to the rules. In exchange NCC vehicles can use the same fast lanes taxi can use. The most contested rule is that NCC are hired only for specific rides (eg form A to B, or for N hours) and they need to go back to the garage between rides. They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride, and the garage to be in the same Comune that gave the NCC permission. This clearly doesn't work well for Uber as it doesn't have any garage, nor it's willing to accept the suboptimal usage the go-back-to-garage is going to cause. Disclaimer: INAL, but I've talked to some Italian lawyers about this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comune edit: formatting

yummyfajitas 10y ago
So Italy's law is basically "be extremely inefficient and don't compete with political insiders". In the US we had similar rules enforced by armed men - don't compete with the Lucchese in the Bronx, the Genovese in Little Italy, etc. Clearly this system is working well for Italy. Maybe in the US we can end RICO and bring back the old system ruled by the capo di tutti capo. That could help boost our economy to Italian levels.
awqrre 10y ago
>They specifically requires the vehicle to be parked in the garage before accepting a ride In Italy, do you also to print an e-bill before paying it online? That may be a bad analogy but it just seems wasteful to me.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

As usual, politicians kill a cheap, customer-friendly service to save an entrenched monopoly. If the horse cart owners were this smart, we never would have had the automobile revolution.

zouhair 10y ago
If Uber is what counts as progress, to hell with this progress.

zouhair 10y ago

Good. They should be banned wherever they don't pay taxes.