Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses EU Transportation Technology

EU's Top Court Rules That Uber Is a Transportation Company (axios.com) 139

Posted by msmash from the next-up dept.
Uber is a taxi company, according to a landmark ruling from Europe's highest court. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Wednesday that the U.S. ride-hailing app is a transportation firm and not a digital company. The verdict is a long-awaited judgment expected to have major implications for how Uber is regulated throughout Europe. From a report: The E.U.'s member countries now have more clarity and authority to regulate Uber as a transportation company (more strictly than as a tech service), though many already do so. As a technology company, Uber would have been protected by E.U. law from certain restrictions by individual countries, and would have required them to notify the commission of any new regulations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU's Top Court Rules That Uber Is a Transportation Company More

EU's Top Court Rules That Uber Is a Transportation Company

Comments Filter:

  • In other words... (Score:4, Funny)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:12AM (#55775247)

    ...European court rules that Uber is a pathological liar for claiming to be a tech firm in the first place.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawk ( 1151 )

      That's not fair.

      They're using "contractors" to connect to the user base they're building until they have their own autonomous fleet.

      That makes them, err, a, oh never mind . . .

    • True, and that could mean trouble for other gig-economy business such as Deliveroo and, most importantly Airbnb: https://citiesofthefuture.eu/t... [citiesofthefuture.eu]
  • Uber is in the taxi business, period. They use technology to run their business, just like every other company.

    By their logic e-trade can't be regulated as a stock brokerage business. They are just a technology platform that connects sellers and buyers.

    • "What can we get away with?" has been a corporate tactic for a very long time. And while it's hardly limited to corporations, they tend to have bigger legal teams.

    • Why is a nerd tech website so obsessed with taxi's?

      • Why is a nerd tech website so obsessed with taxi's?

        People like the idea that by coding an app you can overthrow the government and become a billionaire. Technological Randism.

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:25AM (#55775317) Homepage

    Another one in the face for those silicon valley arsewipes who's idea of "disruption" is destroying established businesses through undercutting and paying as little as possible to both employees (yes, they are in the EU) and the taxman.

    Tell you what bro's - if you don't want to pay tax how about you don't use any facilities paid for out of tax revenue? That would be , oh, most roads in the world I suspect!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      I'm much more concerned by their ignoring passenger livery laws than anything else. If stupid people want to wear-out their own personal cars for minimum wage, fine, more power to them. But I expect commercial insurance, driver background checks, and in congested places, them to comply with whatever vehicle-count licensing system exists.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nasch ( 598556 )

      Businesses don't tend to last very long paying more than necessary in wages or taxes.

      • Remember when Henry Ford bankrupted the Ford Motor Company when he doubled his workers' daily wage [wikipedia.org]?

        Lol, Ford. Not a name anyone would associate with a car nowadays, amirite?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Congratulations, you found a single exception. My point is Uber is far from unique in seeking to reduce their labor and tax expenses. How many companies do you think you could find doing the same thing if you went looking? You would definitely get bored before you ran out of references.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Maritz ( 1829006 )
            Yep. They're seeking to reduce those costs, and now a court has slapped them down because they're a taxi company whether they fucking like it or not. The world keeps turning and Uber can suck it the fuck up.
          • But there is a difference between (say) tax avoidance and tax evasion.

            Uber is attempting to reduce its costs illegally.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          But that wasn't about worker welfare, nor was it the urban legend about workers being able to buy cars.

          Worker turnover at auto makers in general at the time was about three times a year. At the higher wage, workers stayed over a year on average, becoming more skilled and radically reducing training costs.

          Note: iirc, Cadillac had significantly longer retention than the industry at large.

          Note 2: the higher wage avoiding training costs is also the economic reason that you don't see layoffs after a moderate m

      • Pay up (Score:2)

        by sjbe ( 173966 )

        Businesses don't tend to last very long paying more than necessary in wages or taxes.

        That's not a valid excuse for paying less than required/necessary.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          Certainly. Paying as little as (legally) possible is general practice. Violating labor and tax laws should result in fines and/or jail time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        That's not at all true. You should do some research. The best companies in the world pays "more than necessary".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nasch ( 598556 )

          I doubt it. "More than competitors" and "more than necessary" are not the same after all. Perhaps for that company paying more than their competitors is necessary to maintain their competitive advantage. If you can show me a common practice of paying more than the lowest wage that would accomplish every business objective then I'll change my tune.

    • ...destroying established businesses

      Yeah, the "business" of cab companies handing envelopes of cash to city governments. Fuck cab companies.

  • In other news.. water is wet.

  • And 7 billion people say 'duh' (or whatever 'duh' is in their respective languages - please educate me what duh is in your language).

    I think the whole world knew they were a transport company not a digital company. They've just been trying to use loopholes to avoid being regulated.

  • What are the chances a taxi company would be considered a transportation company?

    The mind boggles at such a concept.

  • Uber compared to private hire / radio cabs (Score:3)

    by timmyf2371 ( 586051 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:18AM (#55775659)

    I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).

    Private hire / radio cabs:

    - Operate on a pre-booked basis only (you cannot stop one in the street).
    - Are booked by speaking to an operator, who co-ordinates the drivers affiliated with their firm.
    - Comes to you and the driver gives you a call to let you know he has arrived.

    It seems that Uber's technology largely replaces the role of the operator. Their business model is hardly new or unique (in the UK and Europe), and their automation of part of the process, using an app and some servers, is to be applauded but doesn't negate the fact that they are simply a big private hire firm.

    • I've used Uber once or twice and I struggle to see much of a difference between their business model and that of private hire companies (private hire taxis being similarly licensed by authorities, but different than 'official' taxis).

      Private hire / radio cabs:

      In some localities, they did operate under those rules although they were usually meant for town cars and limos but made no actual distinction between car models. What happened in Seattle anyway is that the localities made new laws that said such businesses could not have a fleet of more than 300 cars, which prevented Uber/Lyft/etc from operating as normal.

  • But all of the hipsters keep telling me we're in a "sharing economy," now. How can it be a transportation company if they're just facilitating people sharing with each other.

    Also, let me share some vomit at the absurd mis-use of that word.

  • They considered a few other options to classify Uber, like a mid-sized sedan, swamp gas, camera smudge, or man in ape suit.

  • For frequent travelers, this is bad news (Score:3, Informative)

    by burhop ( 2883223 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @11:46AM (#55776505)

    As a frequent traveler, this is bad news.

    In the past, I've always used taxis. They can be hard to get, often late, don't keep up with the technology, often require cash (despite some laws that require them to take credit cards). Obviously, some places are better than others due to any number of factors but I don't always get to choose where I go.

    Using an app to get a ride (I use Lyft when I can) is so much easier. You know the cost up front, when the driver will be there, and can even see where they are on the map. The desire to get high marks from passengers results in nice clean cars, cellphone chargers, and politeness (OK, not all the time, but I have a really easy way to report back to the company if they are bad).

    And then the price is better. Sure, the difference is not going to make or break a customer or company but these things add up in a budget.

    While I see the point of taxis being regulated in the same way as other drivers, the reality will be that a bunch of slowly changing regulations that will cripple being able to have a quick, inexpensive, and pleasant ride just to support an old horse drawn buggy system.

    • Re:For frequent travelers, this is bad news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @12:11PM (#55776741)
      That's nice that you want all of that, but what you want isn't really all that important to society. It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. Of course it's cheaper to take a Uber than a taxi: They don't pay the same taxes and fees that taxi companies pay, they don't pay their "employees" anywhere near what taxi companies pay, and they're fueled by dot-com bullshit money. While you make a great case for your own convenience, you have ignored the needs of everybody else involved in your (selfish) decisions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by burhop ( 2883223 )

        It's more important that companies treat their employees properly, and play on a level playing field. .

        Totally agree. The problem is the playing field is tilted on both sides of the argument. Pick a country or city and look up its taxi regulations. They are often tilted in favor of special interests (like large taxi cab companies).

        You are right that I should be more altruistic. I'll work on that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          > Pick a country or city and look up its taxi
          >regulations. They are often tilted in favor of special
          >interests (like large taxi cab companies).

          That is demonstrably incorrect, at lest in the US: there is no "often" nor "tilt"; the very *purpose* of "tai regulation" is to keep new taxi companies from entering the business.

          OK, a *bit* of consumer protection actually comes in, like insurance requirements and background checks, from which is *insane* to let a new entrant have an exception.

          hawk

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bws111 ( 1216812 )

            Oh bullshit. The purpose of MOST taxi regulations is safety. Things like making sure you have qualified drivers (not people convicted of FELONY DWI and reckless driving like Uber has been shown to have), the cars are safe, metering is fair, driver is properly insured, etc. The only way those regulations 'keep new companies from entering the business' is if the 'new company' is unable to provide qualified drivers in safe cars charging a fair rate (ie, Uber). In MOST places those are the ONLY regulation

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by hawk ( 1151 )

              That just isn't true.

              Check with any competent (rather than movement) antitrust economist, or a lawyer involved in such regulation who is welling to tell you about reality rather than the party line.

              There is more total profit in a monopoly than a duopoly, and in a duopoly than a triopoly, and so forth. The incumbents don't simply welcome, but invite expensive regulation that makes it to expensive for new players to enter, keeping up their "economic profits".

              This phenomenon is the primary reason for the heav

    • Using an app to get a taxi does not change the fact that it is a taxi.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @12:57PM (#55777209)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close