5 ms·

Uber Is a Taxi Service, the E.C.J. Says, in Major Setback to Firm

79 points by hvo 9y ago

sidlls 9y ago
Here's a Reuters article on this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-dealt-blow-after-eu-court-classifies-it-as-transport-service-idUSKBN1EE0W3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-dealt-blo... I'm not sure "major setback" applies. They lost a court case, but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway. If that's accurate it seems like the ruling is a formality in some sense, and the Reuters title is more accurate. It is a blow, but in the sense that they lost the case, not that it substantially affects how they operate.
- superqwert 9y ago
  Of course it will affect them - they will have to ensure their drivers are fit to drive at all times. Drivers will not be able to work extended periods of times and Uber may be forced through this to pay for holidays + sick leave.
  - tomludus 9y ago
    Yes this is a very good point. I asked an Uber driver in London if they put any restrictions on driving time and he confirmed that they did not. Might have to rethink that one.
    - Y_Y 9y ago
      In Helsinki Uber drivers ask you to sit in the front because they don't want to get stopped for operating an illegal taxi.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Not that Uber can be trusted, but they claim they're already in compliance with pertinent laws. In other words the effects have already occurred. It seems like this case was an attempt to reverse that condition and they lost.
- CaptainZapp 9y ago
  but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway That's true in Switzerland. That's why Uber Pop was essentially shut down in Basel, Zurich and now Geneva. Of course Uber PR spun this with yet some more cringeworthy fluff.
tici_88 9y ago
It feels like the ruling is essentially stating the obvious.
- whb07 9y ago
  Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? To me all this stinks of using the courts to protect the market share of the taxi unions because they are unable to do it from years of protectionism.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Because the taxi unions have a far less diffuse interest than the general public does. Look, I have no idea if the existing rules are sensible or just erected as barriers to new entrants. Probably a bit of both. However, in general, businesses and individuals can't just say: "Nope, the law is stupid so I'll just ignore it." I may think that things like liquor licenses for restaurants are a scam in many cities in the US (and they often are) but I'll get shut down in a hurry if I serve alcohol without one.
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    If you think of Uber as a taxi union you can be less empathic to them, the same way people don't cheer for the taxi companies.
  - candu 9y ago
    ...and to me this looks like they've (quite reasonably) reached the decision that skirting labor and transportation regulations is not a legally valid form of "disruption". (See also: Airbnb's ongoing regulatory tussles with various municipalities over what constitutes a "hotel".) That's not to say that the local taxi interest doesn't have a vested interest in pursuing this - they most certainly do, and they're just as certainly protecting their own interests. Even still, nothing about this ruling strikes me as "protectionist": the court is simply saying "you operate a taxi service, therefore you must follow the same rules as other taxi services". This is quite different from "you operate a taxi service!? Too bad, you can't operate here." IMHO, "innovation", "competition", "disruption", etc. are not valid reasons to completely ignore laws. I have little sympathy for Uber at this point, since their modus operandi at every turn has been "ignore the laws until someone rules otherwise, then continue to ignore the laws until someone enforces the ruling". That, quite frankly, is bullshit, especially in a case where the relevant laws exist primarily to protect public safety and the rights of employees. (Contrast this with copyright law, which has a rich history of overreach and regulatory capture, and where there is a much stronger moral argument that the laws are unjust.)
chx 9y ago
This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034
Oletros 9y ago
No, the ECJ doesn't say that it is a taxi service, the ECJ says that Uber should be regulated as a transport service instead of an information service
jatsign 9y ago
Uber says they already mostly comply: "The ruling is the first to apply to Uber across the European Union. In a statement, the company said that it already operated under the transportation law of most European countries in which it did business, and that the ruling would have little impact. It added that it would continue a dialogue with cities across Europe for its services."
jonbarker 9y ago
Rideshare companies seem more like huge dispatching services to me. Are these companies then all taxi services too? https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+taxi+companies https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+tax...
- aw1621107 9y ago
  I think there might be a slight difference in that Uber also takes care of hiring drivers

79 points by hvo 9y ago

Here's a Reuters article on this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-dealt-blow-after-eu-court-classifies-it-as-transport-service-idUSKBN1EE0W3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-dealt-blo... I'm not sure "major setback" applies. They lost a court case, but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway. If that's accurate it seems like the ruling is a formality in some sense, and the Reuters title is more accurate. It is a blow, but in the sense that they lost the case, not that it substantially affects how they operate.

superqwert 9y ago
Of course it will affect them - they will have to ensure their drivers are fit to drive at all times. Drivers will not be able to work extended periods of times and Uber may be forced through this to pay for holidays + sick leave.
- tomludus 9y ago
  Yes this is a very good point. I asked an Uber driver in London if they put any restrictions on driving time and he confirmed that they did not. Might have to rethink that one.
  - Y_Y 9y ago
    In Helsinki Uber drivers ask you to sit in the front because they don't want to get stopped for operating an illegal taxi.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Not that Uber can be trusted, but they claim they're already in compliance with pertinent laws. In other words the effects have already occurred. It seems like this case was an attempt to reverse that condition and they lost.
CaptainZapp 9y ago
but according to Uber they're already complying with transportation services regulations anyway That's true in Switzerland. That's why Uber Pop was essentially shut down in Basel, Zurich and now Geneva. Of course Uber PR spun this with yet some more cringeworthy fluff.

tici_88 9y ago

It feels like the ruling is essentially stating the obvious.

whb07 9y ago
Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? To me all this stinks of using the courts to protect the market share of the taxi unions because they are unable to do it from years of protectionism.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Because the taxi unions have a far less diffuse interest than the general public does. Look, I have no idea if the existing rules are sensible or just erected as barriers to new entrants. Probably a bit of both. However, in general, businesses and individuals can't just say: "Nope, the law is stupid so I'll just ignore it." I may think that things like liquor licenses for restaurants are a scam in many cities in the US (and they often are) but I'll get shut down in a hurry if I serve alcohol without one.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  If you think of Uber as a taxi union you can be less empathic to them, the same way people don't cheer for the taxi companies.
- candu 9y ago
  ...and to me this looks like they've (quite reasonably) reached the decision that skirting labor and transportation regulations is not a legally valid form of "disruption". (See also: Airbnb's ongoing regulatory tussles with various municipalities over what constitutes a "hotel".) That's not to say that the local taxi interest doesn't have a vested interest in pursuing this - they most certainly do, and they're just as certainly protecting their own interests. Even still, nothing about this ruling strikes me as "protectionist": the court is simply saying "you operate a taxi service, therefore you must follow the same rules as other taxi services". This is quite different from "you operate a taxi service!? Too bad, you can't operate here." IMHO, "innovation", "competition", "disruption", etc. are not valid reasons to completely ignore laws. I have little sympathy for Uber at this point, since their modus operandi at every turn has been "ignore the laws until someone rules otherwise, then continue to ignore the laws until someone enforces the ruling". That, quite frankly, is bullshit, especially in a case where the relevant laws exist primarily to protect public safety and the rights of employees. (Contrast this with copyright law, which has a rich history of overreach and regulatory capture, and where there is a much stronger moral argument that the laws are unjust.)

chx 9y ago

This is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034

Oletros 9y ago

No, the ECJ doesn't say that it is a taxi service, the ECJ says that Uber should be regulated as a transport service instead of an information service

jatsign 9y ago

Uber says they already mostly comply: "The ruling is the first to apply to Uber across the European Union. In a statement, the company said that it already operated under the transportation law of most European countries in which it did business, and that the ruling would have little impact. It added that it would continue a dialogue with cities across Europe for its services."

jonbarker 9y ago

Rideshare companies seem more like huge dispatching services to me. Are these companies then all taxi services too? https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+taxi+companies https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+tax...

aw1621107 9y ago
I think there might be a slight difference in that Uber also takes care of hiring drivers