7 ms·

Uber to ignore German ban despite being ruled 'illegal'

28 points by ASquare 12y ago

delg 12y ago
Yeah, why should it matter that your business model is illegal/regulatory arbitrage? Progress!
- ASquare 12y ago
  They're certainly consistently aggressive no matter where they are...
Afforess 12y ago
Good. It seems bizarre that something as ordinary as a trip in a car needs extensive regulations. Obsolete laws should be challenged.
- sp332 12y ago
  You might think so, but there are a surprisingly large number of ways a trip in a car can go wrong.
  - aianus 12y ago
    I feel like people should spend some time in Southeast Asia where families travel around on motorbikes five at a time with no helmets and smiles on their faces. I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.
    - kitcar 12y ago
      Except our commutes to work / meeting would be 5x as long due to unpredictable travel patterns, causing us to achieve significantly less in any given 24 hour period. (I remember my first trip to India (Mumbai) being 3 hours late to a meeting because I didn't account for the delays an basically unregulated road transport system can cause...)
      - aianus 12y ago
        I wouldn't say the traffic is any worse than the 401 in Toronto or any of the major freeways in LA. I can get all the way across Hanoi at rush hour in an hour tops on a $300 Chinese knockoff motorcycle that gets 2L/100km. Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here.
        potatolicious 12y ago
        > "Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here." It's a tradeoff for a wealthy Canadian traveling the world. It's a matter of necessity for most other people. The level of privilege in these posts of yours is frustrating. People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.
        aianus 12y ago
        > People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them. Given that the locals like to a) make fun of my western helmet and gloves b) don't bother to wear even the cheap local helmets available c) take needless risks like running reds, driving drunk, and driving on the wrong side of the street I'd have to disagree with this assessment.
    - aianus 12y ago
      It'd be nice if you all commented instead of mashing the downvote button. I believe there's a real psychological cost to being afraid of every little thing.
      - svalorzen 12y ago
        We're not talking about washing your hands with disinfectant every time you open a door, we're talking about car accidents here. Have you ever seen one? You're trying to be cocky and all, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. And it's not only about my own personal risk, it's about people I know getting into accidents. Keep your 0.1% of fatal accident risk, assume you know 200 people and do the math to find out the chance than at least one of you will get into one. You'll be surprised, it's more than 80%.
        aianus 12y ago
        Everybody dies and frankly I'm much more terrified of making it to 75 and getting Alzheimer's or prostate cancer than a quick violent death at 23.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - potatolicious 12y ago
      I did, in fact I grew up in a Southeast Asian country where the primary mode of transport are scooters. From a young age I learned how to tuck myself in the "well" of a Vespa between my father and the handlebars so we can get from place to place. It was scary then, it's still scary now. We didn't do it because it was safe or comfortable, we did it because cars were unaffordable, parking even more so, and you still had to get places. Everyone knows someone who got into a motorbike accident, everyone knows someone who got injured this way. It is a transport mode of necessity, not something to be celebrated. It is also one of many reasons my family ultimately emigrated to the West.
    - sp332 12y ago
      It's not really about fear of dying, although I think it's good for people taking strangers' lives into their hands on a regular basis to be under more scrutiny. It includes drivers ripping off passengers in many ways, refusing passengers based on race or gender, and refusing to go to certain places. You really have to be extra careful about such systematic abuses.
    - TillE 12y ago
      > 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% Even with your own arbitrary numbers, you're casually talking about a 2x increase in the number of fatal accidents, which is not a small number to begin with in any country with significant car ownership. Also, the real statistics indicate the difference is more like 5-10x that of Germany, per capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
    - Guvante 12y ago
      Car pooling messes with the numbers too much for me to be sure, but the fatality per vehicle rate is 15x in India compared to the US and 62x in Afghanistan.
    - at-fates-hands 12y ago
      >>> I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back. You do realize there's a reason wearing seat belts in most states is required by law? http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Study:+Higher+Seat+Belt+Use+Could+Save+Many+Lives http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Stu... "A U.S. Department of Transportation study released today estimates that 1,652 lives could be saved and 22,372 serious injuries avoided each year on America’s roadways if seat belt use rates rose to 90 percent in every state. The new research report, based on 2007 data, also estimates that seat belts saved a stunning 15,147 lives that year. The study’s findings were released today as the Department launched its “Click It or Ticket” nationwide enforcement campaign."
    - ginko 12y ago
      >I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% A 0.1% chance of dying per ride would mean a 51% probability of dying within a year of daily commuting.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Why do we have to drive on a particular side of the road, anyway?
  - enraged_camel 12y ago
    Or stop at a red light? Why are we letting lights limit our freedoms?!
viraptor 12y ago
Is it the Uber app/office or Uber drivers that will continue to work despite the ban? They can say what they want in the press releases, but it's the drivers that are at risk and will be making the decision. (or did I misunderstand and it's actually the company that will get fined?)
- gerbal 12y ago
  It appears to be the drivers who will be fined.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    The injunction is against the company, actually against Uber BV located in the Netherlands, not against Uber GmbH located in Germany (Uber is trying to pull the corporate tricks of shifting responsibility around by assigning only "Marketing Duties" to its German subsidary). The juicy part is that instead of a monetary fine, the fine can also be up to 6 month of jail for the Director of Uber BV. That's unlikely to happen, but I'd like to see them disrupt "prison time".
  - Bud 12y ago
    Here is the specific sentence from the Deutsche Welle article that is relevant to this question: "Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride." So at least according to that story, Uber will be fined, not the drivers.
    - at-fates-hands 12y ago
      Is this something they can take to court and tie up in the court system while they continue to break the law? Not an expert on German law so forgive me if I'm way off base.
      - Xylakant 12y ago
        AFAIK no. This is a court granted injunction and can be enforced. If Uber continues to offer services their court opponent needs to demand that it's enforced and then they could try and tie that up, but that's unlikely to fly. An appeal should not delay, though the injunction may be overturned later.
Kequc 12y ago
Is it impossible for Uber drivers to obtain commercial licences? It seems that is the concern here.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  No, they could. It just wouldn't be (as) profitable.
  - Kequc 12y ago
    Pfffffff sounds like the law already existed and a court has simply acknowledged Uber's drivers are breaking it - we'll see how profitable having to pay heavy fines is.
ForHackernews 12y ago
God, what a bunch of d-bags. We live in a society of laws, and you don't get to just ignore the courts, whether you're the NSA or Uber. Here's hoping Germany seizes all their accounts with German banks.
- erikpukinskis 12y ago
  I agree Uber is a bunch of d-bags but you are completely wrong. You do get to disobey the courts. It's called civil disobedience. You disobey them. You take your licks. It's a cornerstone of progress. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or a threat to society. That's an entirely separate judgment we must make.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    If a court issues a specific injunction telling you, as an individual, not to do X, and you go ahead and do X, then you would get punished severely--up to and including jail time. The problem, as I see it, is that we aren't holding large organizations accountable to nearly the same degree as private citizens.
    - true_religion 12y ago
      If they violate the injuction, the director of their EU subsidiary can go to jail. Its in the documents. Also they can be fined up to 250k per ride. I don't think they're getting a slap on the wrist here.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  My opinion is unpopular but I disagree. There are a lot of bad regulations and sometimes it's nice to see people get around them. Mainly when the parties involved are doing it voluntarily and not hurting anyone else. How could anyone be upset over a victimless crime? On the front page there is an article on an anonymous drug market. Somehow it's not full of hateful comments ranting at the users and creators or the Tor project. A few even support it, some claim to have used them, some giving ideas on how to improve or use them safely, etc.
onion2k 12y ago
There's nothing else Uber could have done. If they withdrew from Germany, even only temporarily, it'd be seen as a way to restrict Uber's business in every country they operate in. It'd pretty much be an admission that they don't know if they're operating legally. While the German government are threatening to fine drivers Uber are still ok. If the government actually fines someone successfully, I imagine Uber will be in big trouble.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  The injunction is against the company. Drivers cannot be fined on this basis (but certainly on regulator grounds, that's a different issue altogether)
- tomp 12y ago
  > There's nothing else Uber could have done. How about... complying with the regulation? I.e. requiring their drivers buy commercial insurance? In any case, I love this development. I can't wait either an US company getting fined (or the CEO jailed) for not understanding EU culture, or Germany losing face when trying to beat a US company into submission.
  - pgeorgi 12y ago
    The company in question (Uber B.V.) is in the Netherlands. Because Uber GmbH (in Germany) doesn't have the balls to run this scheme themselves - that would incur a _real_ risk to have their director jailed for 6 months.
    - tomp 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure a German court can have someone in Netherlands jailed...
      - icebraining 12y ago
        It's hardly that linear. See e.g. Klaas Carel Faber.
lispm 12y ago
As a German I'd say ignoring local laws and regulations is not a promising way to do business here in Germany or the EU.
- shapov 12y ago
  I think Uber is overlooking the fact that EU has much better consumer protections in place, than those in the US. Lets see if it pays off for them.
xa180 12y ago
What exactly do I gain by using Uber? I see it's all the rage on the internet, but I still fail to grasp what exactly it is that I'm gaining through its usage. I'm from a medium-sized city (500k-1m) in Central (or Eastern?) Europe and I can use either public transportation or get a cab literally wherever I may be. Why would I want to have a non-registered driver who does not adhere to taxi-standards pick me up and pay provision to a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to set itself up as a monopoly? What niche is Uber filling in that I'm unaware of? Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?
- SeoxyS 12y ago
  Taxis in america (especially San Francisco, where Uber is from) are horrible and downright dangerous. Even the shittiest Uber drivers are better than the average taxi driver. And even if you wanted to hail a cab, your best bet is to try to hail one on the street, because if you call, there's a 50+% chance your taxi won't even show up. And let's not even get into the joke that we call public transportation here. This is the problem it solves. A problem that is not nearly as pronounced in Europe.
  - burgers 12y ago
    This is absolutely untrue. I have taken taxis very often in many US cities including SF while I lived in the Bay Area. Many drivers drive for both taxi services and Uber depending on the day. How is the same exact driver suddenly dangerous in a taxi as opposed to his own car hailed via a smartphone app?
    - SeoxyS 12y ago
      The average taxi driver wouldn't make it as an Uber driver, only the superior drivers can sustain a 4.6+ rating. Uber is extremely draconian when it comes to driver quality. Any driver whose average dips below 4.6 is out. Period. That ensures quality and weeds the bad drivers out. Sure, there are good taxi drivers, but the average driver is horrible. I was comparing them by saying that, say, the 50th percentile cabbie (median), is worse than even the 5th percentile (worst) Uber driver.
chasing 12y ago
> Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride. (via the Deutsche Welle article) Is the plan to also ignore the massive fines that are likely to result?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _up 12y ago
  I think the press got this wrong. The max possible fine is 250.000 per trial.
pbreit 12y ago
Fine amount seems cruel and unusual. $250k for giving someone a ride? Really?
- Xylakant 12y ago
  It's that high because Uber did not comply to earlier requests. Early fines were 1k a pop, this is the repeat offender bonus. (still, it's up to 250k).
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  The fine isn't for giving someone a ride; it's for willfully defying a court order.
Bud 12y ago
If Uber loses its appeal on this, and then continues to ignore the court's ruling, then I think this will be a story. Until then, I'd say that Uber will continue to operate and the court won't do much about it, while the appeal is pending.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  It's not the courts decision to do or not do anything about it. This as a civil case based on the laws on unfair competition, so it's their competitors [1] choice to enforce or not. IANAL, but as far as I know an appeal will not delay this time. Uber might bully the competitor into not enforcing as they did with the taxi company that won a similar case in Berlin, but it's much less likely since this time it's not a small business running 10 cabs like last time. [1] roughly the equivalent of the german taxi company union

28 points by ASquare 12y ago

delg 12y ago

Yeah, why should it matter that your business model is illegal/regulatory arbitrage? Progress!

ASquare 12y ago
They're certainly consistently aggressive no matter where they are...

Afforess 12y ago

Good. It seems bizarre that something as ordinary as a trip in a car needs extensive regulations. Obsolete laws should be challenged.

sp332 12y ago
You might think so, but there are a surprisingly large number of ways a trip in a car can go wrong.
- aianus 12y ago
  I feel like people should spend some time in Southeast Asia where families travel around on motorbikes five at a time with no helmets and smiles on their faces. I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.
  - kitcar 12y ago
    Except our commutes to work / meeting would be 5x as long due to unpredictable travel patterns, causing us to achieve significantly less in any given 24 hour period. (I remember my first trip to India (Mumbai) being 3 hours late to a meeting because I didn't account for the delays an basically unregulated road transport system can cause...)
    - aianus 12y ago
      I wouldn't say the traffic is any worse than the 401 in Toronto or any of the major freeways in LA. I can get all the way across Hanoi at rush hour in an hour tops on a $300 Chinese knockoff motorcycle that gets 2L/100km. Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here.
      - potatolicious 12y ago
        > "Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here." It's a tradeoff for a wealthy Canadian traveling the world. It's a matter of necessity for most other people. The level of privilege in these posts of yours is frustrating. People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.
        aianus 12y ago
        > People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them. Given that the locals like to a) make fun of my western helmet and gloves b) don't bother to wear even the cheap local helmets available c) take needless risks like running reds, driving drunk, and driving on the wrong side of the street I'd have to disagree with this assessment.
  - aianus 12y ago
    It'd be nice if you all commented instead of mashing the downvote button. I believe there's a real psychological cost to being afraid of every little thing.
    - svalorzen 12y ago
      We're not talking about washing your hands with disinfectant every time you open a door, we're talking about car accidents here. Have you ever seen one? You're trying to be cocky and all, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. And it's not only about my own personal risk, it's about people I know getting into accidents. Keep your 0.1% of fatal accident risk, assume you know 200 people and do the math to find out the chance than at least one of you will get into one. You'll be surprised, it's more than 80%.
      - aianus 12y ago
        Everybody dies and frankly I'm much more terrified of making it to 75 and getting Alzheimer's or prostate cancer than a quick violent death at 23.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    I did, in fact I grew up in a Southeast Asian country where the primary mode of transport are scooters. From a young age I learned how to tuck myself in the "well" of a Vespa between my father and the handlebars so we can get from place to place. It was scary then, it's still scary now. We didn't do it because it was safe or comfortable, we did it because cars were unaffordable, parking even more so, and you still had to get places. Everyone knows someone who got into a motorbike accident, everyone knows someone who got injured this way. It is a transport mode of necessity, not something to be celebrated. It is also one of many reasons my family ultimately emigrated to the West.
  - sp332 12y ago
    It's not really about fear of dying, although I think it's good for people taking strangers' lives into their hands on a regular basis to be under more scrutiny. It includes drivers ripping off passengers in many ways, refusing passengers based on race or gender, and refusing to go to certain places. You really have to be extra careful about such systematic abuses.
  - TillE 12y ago
    > 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% Even with your own arbitrary numbers, you're casually talking about a 2x increase in the number of fatal accidents, which is not a small number to begin with in any country with significant car ownership. Also, the real statistics indicate the difference is more like 5-10x that of Germany, per capita: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
  - Guvante 12y ago
    Car pooling messes with the numbers too much for me to be sure, but the fatality per vehicle rate is 15x in India compared to the US and 62x in Afghanistan.
  - at-fates-hands 12y ago
    >>> I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back. You do realize there's a reason wearing seat belts in most states is required by law? http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Study:+Higher+Seat+Belt+Use+Could+Save+Many+Lives http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Stu... "A U.S. Department of Transportation study released today estimates that 1,652 lives could be saved and 22,372 serious injuries avoided each year on America’s roadways if seat belt use rates rose to 90 percent in every state. The new research report, based on 2007 data, also estimates that seat belts saved a stunning 15,147 lives that year. The study’s findings were released today as the Department launched its “Click It or Ticket” nationwide enforcement campaign."
  - ginko 12y ago
    >I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% A 0.1% chance of dying per ride would mean a 51% probability of dying within a year of daily commuting.
pjc50 12y ago
Why do we have to drive on a particular side of the road, anyway?
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  Or stop at a red light? Why are we letting lights limit our freedoms?!

viraptor 12y ago

Is it the Uber app/office or Uber drivers that will continue to work despite the ban? They can say what they want in the press releases, but it's the drivers that are at risk and will be making the decision. (or did I misunderstand and it's actually the company that will get fined?)

gerbal 12y ago
It appears to be the drivers who will be fined.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  The injunction is against the company, actually against Uber BV located in the Netherlands, not against Uber GmbH located in Germany (Uber is trying to pull the corporate tricks of shifting responsibility around by assigning only "Marketing Duties" to its German subsidary). The juicy part is that instead of a monetary fine, the fine can also be up to 6 month of jail for the Director of Uber BV. That's unlikely to happen, but I'd like to see them disrupt "prison time".
- Bud 12y ago
  Here is the specific sentence from the Deutsche Welle article that is relevant to this question: "Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride." So at least according to that story, Uber will be fined, not the drivers.
  - at-fates-hands 12y ago
    Is this something they can take to court and tie up in the court system while they continue to break the law? Not an expert on German law so forgive me if I'm way off base.
    - Xylakant 12y ago
      AFAIK no. This is a court granted injunction and can be enforced. If Uber continues to offer services their court opponent needs to demand that it's enforced and then they could try and tie that up, but that's unlikely to fly. An appeal should not delay, though the injunction may be overturned later.

Kequc 12y ago

Is it impossible for Uber drivers to obtain commercial licences? It seems that is the concern here.

Xylakant 12y ago
No, they could. It just wouldn't be (as) profitable.
- Kequc 12y ago
  Pfffffff sounds like the law already existed and a court has simply acknowledged Uber's drivers are breaking it - we'll see how profitable having to pay heavy fines is.

ForHackernews 12y ago

God, what a bunch of d-bags. We live in a society of laws, and you don't get to just ignore the courts, whether you're the NSA or Uber. Here's hoping Germany seizes all their accounts with German banks.

erikpukinskis 12y ago
I agree Uber is a bunch of d-bags but you are completely wrong. You do get to disobey the courts. It's called civil disobedience. You disobey them. You take your licks. It's a cornerstone of progress. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or a threat to society. That's an entirely separate judgment we must make.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  If a court issues a specific injunction telling you, as an individual, not to do X, and you go ahead and do X, then you would get punished severely--up to and including jail time. The problem, as I see it, is that we aren't holding large organizations accountable to nearly the same degree as private citizens.
  - true_religion 12y ago
    If they violate the injuction, the director of their EU subsidiary can go to jail. Its in the documents. Also they can be fined up to 250k per ride. I don't think they're getting a slap on the wrist here.
Houshalter 12y ago
My opinion is unpopular but I disagree. There are a lot of bad regulations and sometimes it's nice to see people get around them. Mainly when the parties involved are doing it voluntarily and not hurting anyone else. How could anyone be upset over a victimless crime? On the front page there is an article on an anonymous drug market. Somehow it's not full of hateful comments ranting at the users and creators or the Tor project. A few even support it, some claim to have used them, some giving ideas on how to improve or use them safely, etc.

onion2k 12y ago

There's nothing else Uber could have done. If they withdrew from Germany, even only temporarily, it'd be seen as a way to restrict Uber's business in every country they operate in. It'd pretty much be an admission that they don't know if they're operating legally. While the German government are threatening to fine drivers Uber are still ok. If the government actually fines someone successfully, I imagine Uber will be in big trouble.

Xylakant 12y ago
The injunction is against the company. Drivers cannot be fined on this basis (but certainly on regulator grounds, that's a different issue altogether)
tomp 12y ago
> There's nothing else Uber could have done. How about... complying with the regulation? I.e. requiring their drivers buy commercial insurance? In any case, I love this development. I can't wait either an US company getting fined (or the CEO jailed) for not understanding EU culture, or Germany losing face when trying to beat a US company into submission.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  The company in question (Uber B.V.) is in the Netherlands. Because Uber GmbH (in Germany) doesn't have the balls to run this scheme themselves - that would incur a _real_ risk to have their director jailed for 6 months.
  - tomp 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure a German court can have someone in Netherlands jailed...
    - icebraining 12y ago
      It's hardly that linear. See e.g. Klaas Carel Faber.

lispm 12y ago

As a German I'd say ignoring local laws and regulations is not a promising way to do business here in Germany or the EU.

shapov 12y ago
I think Uber is overlooking the fact that EU has much better consumer protections in place, than those in the US. Lets see if it pays off for them.

xa180 12y ago

What exactly do I gain by using Uber? I see it's all the rage on the internet, but I still fail to grasp what exactly it is that I'm gaining through its usage. I'm from a medium-sized city (500k-1m) in Central (or Eastern?) Europe and I can use either public transportation or get a cab literally wherever I may be. Why would I want to have a non-registered driver who does not adhere to taxi-standards pick me up and pay provision to a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to set itself up as a monopoly? What niche is Uber filling in that I'm unaware of? Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?

SeoxyS 12y ago
Taxis in america (especially San Francisco, where Uber is from) are horrible and downright dangerous. Even the shittiest Uber drivers are better than the average taxi driver. And even if you wanted to hail a cab, your best bet is to try to hail one on the street, because if you call, there's a 50+% chance your taxi won't even show up. And let's not even get into the joke that we call public transportation here. This is the problem it solves. A problem that is not nearly as pronounced in Europe.
- burgers 12y ago
  This is absolutely untrue. I have taken taxis very often in many US cities including SF while I lived in the Bay Area. Many drivers drive for both taxi services and Uber depending on the day. How is the same exact driver suddenly dangerous in a taxi as opposed to his own car hailed via a smartphone app?
  - SeoxyS 12y ago
    The average taxi driver wouldn't make it as an Uber driver, only the superior drivers can sustain a 4.6+ rating. Uber is extremely draconian when it comes to driver quality. Any driver whose average dips below 4.6 is out. Period. That ensures quality and weeds the bad drivers out. Sure, there are good taxi drivers, but the average driver is horrible. I was comparing them by saying that, say, the 50th percentile cabbie (median), is worse than even the 5th percentile (worst) Uber driver.

chasing 12y ago

> Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride. (via the Deutsche Welle article) Is the plan to also ignore the massive fines that are likely to result?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_up 12y ago
I think the press got this wrong. The max possible fine is 250.000 per trial.

pbreit 12y ago

Fine amount seems cruel and unusual. $250k for giving someone a ride? Really?

Xylakant 12y ago
It's that high because Uber did not comply to earlier requests. Early fines were 1k a pop, this is the repeat offender bonus. (still, it's up to 250k).
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
The fine isn't for giving someone a ride; it's for willfully defying a court order.

Bud 12y ago

If Uber loses its appeal on this, and then continues to ignore the court's ruling, then I think this will be a story. Until then, I'd say that Uber will continue to operate and the court won't do much about it, while the appeal is pending.

Xylakant 12y ago
It's not the courts decision to do or not do anything about it. This as a civil case based on the laws on unfair competition, so it's their competitors [1] choice to enforce or not. IANAL, but as far as I know an appeal will not delay this time. Uber might bully the competitor into not enforcing as they did with the taxi company that won a similar case in Berlin, but it's much less likely since this time it's not a small business running 10 cabs like last time. [1] roughly the equivalent of the german taxi company union