
French court orders Uber to pay €1.2M to taxi firm - flexie
http://www.france24.com/en/20160127-court-orders-uber-pay-12m-french-taxi-group-strike
======
SRasch
Okay, well, let's compare.

Uber's violation: possibly not informing their drivers of the hilarious law of
having to drive back to your garage after every trip.

National Union of Taxis violation: \- Instigating and supporting violence in
Paris this summer, cars where set on fire and passengers attacked. \-
Supporting ongoing a violent rampage that yesterdat blocked a highway, threw
tires at innocent drivers and got into a fistfight with the police.

When asked how long the violent rampage will go on this summer, their
president commented: "This will go on indefinitely, at least tonight and
tomorrow." [http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-
pr...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/europe/france-paris-uberpop-protests/)

In the cosmic order of right and wrong, it seems to me more appropriate that
Uber get their money back, and National Taxi Union might belong behind bars
rather than driving passengers.

~~~
legulere
Or if you want to see the greater picture:

Uber's violation: trying to kill a whole industry by making people act
illegally, while also taking 20% of their revenue.

National Union of Taxis violation: trying to not have the lives of the members
ruined because an american company thinks it can get rich through illegal
behaviour.

~~~
SRasch
I understand your point of view, but wouldn't you agree that the The National
Taxi Union's use of violence supersedes their motivations, whatever it may be?

If it was the other way around, if it was Uber who attacked passengers,
blocked highways and threw fiery tires at the Taxi Drivers. And The National
Taxi Union were breaking the drive-back-to-your garage law. -> Then it seems
to me that Uber would be the thugs of the two, regardless of who I support.

Whether you intellectually think the Taxi companies deserve protection from
competition, it still seems that the National Taxi Union are the thugs here.

------
jokoon
Also heard there still is some shady taxi company, named G7, that has an
almost monopoly of the french taxi market.

Not to defend Uber, but I still don't believe you can solve anti-liberal
policies by just breaking everything in a niche market like this one, and
pretend it's for the sake of progress.

Also, the day Uber rides get taxed like all other taxis, and end up costing as
much because they align with french policies, I'm sure Uber will quickly
vanish.

Many french medias already talk about the uberisation of society. I don't know
if that's already the case in other places. But I think it's totally normal to
see people getting angry at an american company who makes profit thanks to an
economic model which is not really compatible.

There is already a lot of talk and disagreement over inequality, so in my
mind, it's again normal for people to relate this to be another form of
capitalistic looting.

------
kennydude
> head back to their garages after each fare

What an odd rule in general

~~~
SilasX
To put on my charitable hat for a minute ...

I assume the reason for this law is part of an attempt to distinguish call-a-
ride services (that can't accept line-of-sight street hails) from taxis (which
can).

The fear would then be that someone doing the former can do some of the
nuisance stuff associated with the latter, but without passing the appropriate
regulatory hurdles -- i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride,
which medallion limits exist to prevent.

Even then, I would think regulators would adapt this kind of thing to a world
where a call-a-ride car is _very likely_ to be near a person who specifically
asks for them. At the very least, they should change it to something like,
"you have to be pulled over when looking for rides".

(Admittedly, that's all speculation.)

~~~
adevine
> i.e., they might cruise around hoping to be near a ride, which medallion
> limits exist to prevent.

I'd be interested to see how the extra traffic caused by drivers cruising
around compares to the extra traffic caused by drivers needing to drive back
to a garage, only to be called out again.

------
protomyth
You would think, if you were being honest about it, that you could build into
your app a "checkin at my garage" function that would allow you to prove that
after each fair your driver followed the law and went back to their garage.

~~~
ryanlol
Or you could just pay the tax for not following the law.

I don't see how disobeying the law is any more dishonest than following it,
the courts are going to tax you for it but as long as you pay there shouldn't
be any problems.

~~~
protomyth
So, as long as I have the cash, breaking the law isn't an issue for you?

~~~
ryanlol
That's the point of fines, you pay what is essentially a tax for your
behaviour.

Morality is a whole different thing, I for one don't find it immoral for a
driver to pick up passengers without stopping at the garage first.

Anyway, it's called civil disobedience. I'd have though HN would be the last
place to condemn that.

~~~
thetrb
Are you seriously calling an attempt of Uber to bypass French laws for
financial gain "civil disobedience"?

~~~
ryanlol
Because that's exactly what it is?

This might be different if the law in question wasn't utterly ridiculous.

------
fixermark
As an American, it always seems odd to me to see these significant payouts to
what appear to be private organizations (in this case the National Union of
Taxis, in previous cases with Amazon the French Bookseller's Union
[[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-
ship...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/01/amazons-free-shipping-
costing-1000-per-day-in-france/\])) for violation of public law.

~~~
hbbio
For the record, the Uber fine (which I don't approve) is _nothing_ compared to
the BNP fine imposed by the U.S.

cf. [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-
idUSKBN0F52HA20140701)

~~~
dustinmr
And for the record, if we were talking about Uber having driven the Paris
terrorists to their drop off, this would be a valid comparison. But that's not
what we're talking about, and its not.

~~~
oh_sigh
That wouldn't even be close to the situation. The equivalent would be if uber,
at the highest levels, reached out to terrorist networks and helped them get
from compound to compound.

------
belorn
Was this law something that existed in isolation or part of a long list that
regulate the taxi market? In contrast to US, courts in Europe put more weight
on the intent of the law makers than the law text itself, but the description
in the article does not seem to cover that angle.

------
khgvljhkb
Just FYI, 'mn' means million. Had not seen it shortened like that before.

