
Uber Is a Taxi Service, the E.C.J. Says, in Major Setback to Firm - hvo
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/business/uber-europe-ecj.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld
======
chx
This is a dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968034)

------
tici_88
It feels like the ruling is essentially stating the obvious.

~~~
whb07
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.

~~~
candu
...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.)

~~~
malvosenior
...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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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
I think we spent a lot of time challenging and trying to dismantle digital
property rights in the early consumer internet/P2P era.

You're correct in that the laws most likely to be challenged are those in the
way of technological progress. I'd also say the laws that empower a growing
state apparatus are also likely to be targeted.

The regulations in question here look like an obvious overstep of government
into consumer affairs and a resistance against technological and market
progress.

I still don't know how anyone who has ever taken a pre-Uber taxi could make an
argument against Uber. The market forces alone they've created have improved
service 10X in even non-Uber options.

------
sidlls
Here's a Reuters article on this: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-
court/uber-dealt-blo...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/uber-
dealt-blow-after-eu-court-classifies-it-as-transport-service-idUSKBN1EE0W3)

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
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
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
In Helsinki Uber drivers ask you to sit in the front because they don't want
to get stopped for operating an illegal taxi.

------
jatsign
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
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+tax...](https://www.google.com/search?q=dispatching+software+for+taxi+companies)

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

------
Oletros
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

