6 ms·

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.)
  - nikanj 9y ago
    Looking at 1) the valuation of AirBnB/Uber 2) the amount of actual penalties the courts have meted out, it turns out "completely ignore a subset of laws" is a great way to riches
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    ...and to me, your opinion is the polar opposite of everything I believe and quite different than the libertarianism tech grew up with. Laws should always be challenged and dismantled whenever possible. The state should be minimized. That taxis were ever regulated is totally insane and their complete lack of customer service prior to Uber's existence is evidence of that. You can turn your back on innovation and disruption but some of us will continue to fight for it. Regardless, you can't put the tech genie back in the bottle, so while people like you can make life more difficult for people like me, you can't actually stop technology from innovating.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > your opinion is the polar opposite of everything I believe and quite different than the libertarianism tech grew up with. > Laws should always be challenged and dismantled whenever possible. That's a rare belief for a libertarian; like most other ideologies, libertarians usually believe only laws which conflict with their ideology should be challenged and dismantled. The (capitalist) model of property rights libertarians prefer is itself supported by law, which is quite possible to challenge and dismantle (I can point to organized groups who challenge it everywhere and would dismantle it if they had adequate support), but libertarians don't generally participate in that challenging and dismantling.
      - malvosenior 9y ago
- criddell 9y ago
  > Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? I've always seen Uber as a taxi service and I have no interest in taking them to court. I've never been tempted to take a traditional taxi service to court either though. I don't think that really matters though. What is a taxi service? My dictionary says a taxicab is a car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare. That fits pretty closely to how I use Uber, so I'm fine with calling it a taxi service. It's a duck-typing perspective I guess.
  - HelloNurse 9y ago
    Same activity, same regulations. It isn't a complex legal principle.
- Twirrim 9y ago
  > Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? Probably because they often _don't_ need to take them to court. They clarify existing or pass new laws to make the definition of a taxi clearer, or explicitly include "Ridesharing". Also elsewhere Uber has been spending lots of money lobbying government and voters to persuade them to dodge it. It's all utter bullshit. Uber is a Taxi company. You know it, I know it. That they've managed to persuade government to look the other way while they flaunt important safety regulations has been utterly ludicrous. I suspect they only got away with it _because_ Taxi unions have been too powerful, and everyone generally hates taking Taxis.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rbehrends 9y ago
  It is largely a matter of standing. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directives leaves most of the details up to member states, but has a hard requirement that competitors have standing to bring legal action against unfair commercial practices [1]. Spain – where this case originated – also allows for consumer organizations to bring suit (but not individual consumers), but those will generally focus their resources on areas where competitors fail to act. [1] Which was already a common approach in Europe before that directive was enacted.

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.)
- nikanj 9y ago
  Looking at 1) the valuation of AirBnB/Uber 2) the amount of actual penalties the courts have meted out, it turns out "completely ignore a subset of laws" is a great way to riches
- malvosenior 9y ago
  ...and to me, your opinion is the polar opposite of everything I believe and quite different than the libertarianism tech grew up with. Laws should always be challenged and dismantled whenever possible. The state should be minimized. That taxis were ever regulated is totally insane and their complete lack of customer service prior to Uber's existence is evidence of that. You can turn your back on innovation and disruption but some of us will continue to fight for it. Regardless, you can't put the tech genie back in the bottle, so while people like you can make life more difficult for people like me, you can't actually stop technology from innovating.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > your opinion is the polar opposite of everything I believe and quite different than the libertarianism tech grew up with. > Laws should always be challenged and dismantled whenever possible. That's a rare belief for a libertarian; like most other ideologies, libertarians usually believe only laws which conflict with their ideology should be challenged and dismantled. The (capitalist) model of property rights libertarians prefer is itself supported by law, which is quite possible to challenge and dismantle (I can point to organized groups who challenge it everywhere and would dismantle it if they had adequate support), but libertarians don't generally participate in that challenging and dismantling.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
criddell 9y ago
> Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? I've always seen Uber as a taxi service and I have no interest in taking them to court. I've never been tempted to take a traditional taxi service to court either though. I don't think that really matters though. What is a taxi service? My dictionary says a taxicab is a car licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare. That fits pretty closely to how I use Uber, so I'm fine with calling it a taxi service. It's a duck-typing perspective I guess.
- HelloNurse 9y ago
  Same activity, same regulations. It isn't a complex legal principle.
Twirrim 9y ago
> Is it though? Why don’t you see consumers or some other group besides the local taxi interest taking them to court? Probably because they often _don't_ need to take them to court. They clarify existing or pass new laws to make the definition of a taxi clearer, or explicitly include "Ridesharing". Also elsewhere Uber has been spending lots of money lobbying government and voters to persuade them to dodge it. It's all utter bullshit. Uber is a Taxi company. You know it, I know it. That they've managed to persuade government to look the other way while they flaunt important safety regulations has been utterly ludicrous. I suspect they only got away with it _because_ Taxi unions have been too powerful, and everyone generally hates taking Taxis.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rbehrends 9y ago
It is largely a matter of standing. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directives leaves most of the details up to member states, but has a hard requirement that competitors have standing to bring legal action against unfair commercial practices [1]. Spain – where this case originated – also allows for consumer organizations to bring suit (but not individual consumers), but those will generally focus their resources on areas where competitors fail to act. [1] Which was already a common approach in Europe before that directive was enacted.