
German court bans Uber's ride-hailing services in Germany - notlukesky
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-court/german-court-bans-ubers-ride-hailing-services-in-germany-idUSKBN1YN171
======
nbzklr
I know a few people that are heavily invested into Uber here in Germany, with
over 20 cars and drivers each. They will not be happy about this ruling.

Here is some context on how things worked thus far: Since Uber is not allowed
to dispatch directly to independent drivers (see the ruling from 2015), they
instead partnered with rental-car companies that employ the drivers. So in
theory, Uber would dispatch a ride to one of their partners, who then
dispatches it to one of their drivers. In practice, however, everything worked
just as you know it from other countries, with the only difference being that
Uber would send an email to the business owner containing two links: one to
accept the ride and one to decline. Whenever the business owner clicks accept,
the driver would get a text message with the approval. But at this time, he
already would have accepted the ride in the app and be on his way. So
effectively, the business owners had zero control.

It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to
compete under the current set of rules. In addition, Uber has heavily
subsidized rides with discounts of up to 50% for multiple weeks and generous
hourly guarantees for their partners.

~~~
vosper
> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable
> to compete under the current set of rules.

(Caveat that I’m going entirely off your comment, with no background info):
the middlemen businesses sound like small taxi companies, where the bookings
come from Uber rather than directly from customers. Why can’t the taxi
companies compete by building an app that provides the booking part?

~~~
jdjdjjsjs
They can. Uber added nothing to market other than an app, which everyone was
doing for every potential business at the time anyways.

Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they
were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about
trampling about each and every law they could. To the point that they would
break laws that they didn't even need to.

But asking for forgiveness when you have a ton of VC money is obviously better
than not messing up in the first place.

Only good thing is thst, I hope, the market is seeing through these criminals
(at best).

~~~
distances
> Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money
> they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms
> about trampling about each and every law they could.

It's nice to see European bureaucracy at work and actually enforcing rules.
Seems like it's much more resistant to regulatory capture than the US where,
looks like, you can just flaunt any laws if you have enough money.

------
a254613e
This is terrible news. Taxi drivers, at least in Munich, are just horrible.
They're always unfriendly, and their driving is very aggressive, more often
than not accompanied by swearing, and just overall uncomfortable. Cars also
aren't as clean as the uber ones.

I avoid it at any cost, even when they're free, for example when public
transportation has issues they offer free taxis to the affected passengers. I
always opt out for walking, renting a bike, if it's close, or paying for an
uber if it's a longer distance, rather than driving for free with the taxi.

The only advantage taxis had over uber is that there's more of them, and
during some larger events such as Oktoberfest uber was always fully booked.

The regulation needs to be relaxed so that uber, and others, can compete based
on their service - not some other rules and weird laws like the one mentioned
in the article "that hired cars have to return to a rental firm’s main office
after carrying out a ride,"

~~~
CaptainZapp
_The regulation needs to be relaxed so that uber, and others, can compete
based on their service_

Or, you know, Uber respecting regulation and adhere to it?

But that, of course, would completely kill their business model, which
essentially is not really a cab service, but regulation arbitrage. At least
until the law cracks down on them.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Really, what needs to happen is both. Sure, regulations may need review and
adjustment for the smartphone era. But Uber should be burned to the ground by
their blatant violation of the law.

Sometimes breaking the law in the cause of good is justified. But Uber isn't
doing civil disobedience, it's a greedy multinational that unilaterally
decided to ignore the laws that stand between them and their profits. Such
behavior has no place in a civilized society.

------
Nextgrid
I was mostly pro-Uber until their fraudulent way of doing business affected me
directly, in the form of providing a poor service (on Uber Eats) and refusing
to provide a refund up to the point where I had to file a chargeback just to
get my money back. They took my money to deliver one thing, gave me something
totally different and told me that they are "not in a position to offer a
price adjustment or compensation for this order."

Now they can fuck off and I am very happy to hear this. Also hoping they lose
their appeal in London and disappear for good. Their self-driving car efforts
failing miserably and the VC money running out is just the icing on the cake.

They've been good at forcing the existing taxi/transport industry to modernise
but now that they've done that it's time to say goodbye to their fraud & lack
of ethics and open the doors to competitors who do much better on those
fronts.

~~~
kmlx
"Now they can fuck off and I am very happy to hear this. Also hoping they lose
their appeal in London and disappear for good. "

i think uber is by far the best thing to happen to transport and part-time
work in decades. i've known so many drives all around the world working for
uber 1-2 hours per day. even knew a guy that worked for them just 2 trips per
day: his daily commute.

just the feeling of not being denied service because you're brown, or that you
want to travel to a certain neighbourhood, is a vast, vast improvement over
the incumbents.

of course the taxi drivers don't want to change their horrible service. they
paid good money for a job that will hopefully be completely automated in the
near future.

"They've been good at forcing the existing taxi/transport industry to
modernise"

if by modernise you mean "hire more expensive lawyers to sue everyone", then
you're right.

~~~
Nextgrid
> best thing to happen to transport and part-time work in decades

Being "employed" by a company that ignores laws and has zero support for their
drivers ("partner" drivers as they call them) is the best thing?

> by modernise you mean "hire more expensive lawyers to sue everyone", then
> you're right.

A lot of local transport companies now have their own app that offers the same
experience as Uber.

~~~
kmlx
many people signed up for driving for uber for the flexible hours. this is a
feature not a bug.

~~~
zaarn
Doesn't mean Uber isn't evil or exploitative.

------
Traubenfuchs
Taxi drivers have an incentive to scam you, uber drivers have an incentive to
deliver you asap. Taxi companies around the world refuse to give a price
before starting the ride. Everything about the current model is flawed.

~~~
pgeorgi
> Taxi companies around the world refuse to give a price before starting the
> ride.

In my region (in Germany), up to 4 passengers: €2.50 base fee + €2.20/km.
36€/hr if you want them to wait for you. Larger car (6 passengers + lots of
room for luggage) is 15€ extra.

Fixed price to the near-by airport, other destinations can be pre-calculated
on request.

Those prices are valid all day and night, no matter if there's a
concert/soccer game/whatever competing for the company's attention.

Seems pretty transparent to me: I know today what I'd pay for any given route
in 2 months. Uber? Can be anything from ultra cheap to ultra expensive
depending on the mood of their algorithm in the given moment.

------
mschuster91
Good riddance. I'm very happy that the US VC model of blatantly ignoring
rules, growing (and thus creating popular demand / support) and then lobbying
for law amendments in their favor has failed here.

A key part of why Uber failed in Germany is also that our taxi market is
massively and properly regulated which means the selling points of Uber being
a better taxi service simply were irrelevant here - our taxis come when you
order them, the drivers are competent and will take you on the most efficient
way possible to your destination and the pricing is consistent no matter if
it's day or night, if it's high demand time thanks to e.g. a trade fair or
not, or if you're drunk or sober. The only thing that sucks is that many do
not take cards, but that's a cultural thing - Germans _love_ their cash.

~~~
kmlx
"A key part of why Uber failed in Germany is also that our taxi market is
massively and properly regulated"

expensive, poor service where incumbents reign supreme. immigrants and the
night economy workers are constantly being discriminated against.

the "german model" is an antiquated POS that already died out.

~~~
tastroder
The German system might have problems but also comes with upsides, e.g.
mandatory 24 hour ride coverage in the more rural areas as a condition of cab
licenses, training, ... I mean, is there anything stopping Uber from going for
cab licenses and giving their employees the protection our laws dictate?

That might not fit their business model and the regular cab model might be bad
but I'm not convinced that the Uber/pseudo ride share alternative is all roses
either. It certainly can't be the solution to just replace badly behaving
incumbents with some cheap startup that doesn't even employ their drivers.

~~~
kmlx
> giving their employees the protection our laws dictate?

> some cheap startup that doesn't even employ their drivers.

the world has changed decades ago. i think it's time for your laws to change
as well.

overall your comment reminds me of this:

“When behavior runs into poor design, behavior always, and I mean always,
wins.” —@asymco

~~~
tastroder
> the world has changed decades ago. i think it's time for your laws to change
> as well.

The European approaches to worker protection aren't a thing the world has just
moved on from because they want a more convenient and slightly cheaper cab
service. My comment was meant to point out that these regulations don't just
mean to stifle some radical new business model. I for one can live without yet
another industry based on worker exploitation, we've got enough of those
already. Or maybe, to encourage discussion rather than dismissing that view:
what upside would the German society have from relaxing that legislation? That
sector could use some deregulation, sure, but I don't see the point of
replacing it with a player that wants none.

------
manbearpiggy
Quite often people just see it from a consumer's point of view but if I were a
taxi driver, why would I want to work for Uber? Sure it's good for early
adopters but ultimately you get no job security and no wage security.

~~~
jackcodes
Having spoken to enough Uber drivers in West Yorkshire (you don’t have a
choice, they will talk to you) you start to get a feeling for the reasons.

Flexibility of working hours is a big thing. People like to be able to drop
shifts and pick them up as and when they need. If they need more money in the
run up to Christmas they can put more time in.

The other is that the firms aren’t exactly bastions of fairness either. I hear
time and again that the operators give the jobs to their favourite staff, or
as described; whoever is fucking the operator. The concept of working for a
boss and having to deal with some fundamental injustice seems to ring true.
For better or worse Uber is seen as ‘fair’ to the drivers, at least on the
whole. The rules are at least laid out, keep your rating clean and we’ll give
you jobs just like anyone else.

~~~
lotsofpulp
> For better or worse Uber is seen as ‘fair’ to the drivers, at least on the
> whole. The rules are at least laid out,

If true, people wouldn’t be complaining about surge pricing. People just want
cheap, quality, fast service. They don’t care about fair.

The transparency provided by electronic records and payment of taxi rides does
lead to better service though.

~~~
mft_
Not sure if you’re missing the point made.

 _Consumers_ are the ones likely to complain about surge pricing.

 _Drivers_ are the ones who (in the example given) do want fairness from the
dispatcher, which they sometimes don’t get with traditional taxi companies and
human dispatchers, but presumably do from Uber’s algorithm.

~~~
jackcodes
This is what I was trying to convey. From the taxi drivers perspective, the
‘algorithm’ is seen as being more equal than the dispatcher. The ‘algorithm’
in this instance doesn’t discriminate on skin colour, handsomeness, or the
side of the bed it woke up on.

They still find plenty of unfairness in Uber from the individual to Uber
relationship, such as the fees for one, but there seems to be less injustice
between fellow drivers compared to traditional firms.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _The ‘algorithm’ in this instance doesn’t discriminate on skin colour,
> handsomeness, or the side of the bed it woke up on._

But the _drivers_ do, which is a source of complaints in places where taxi
service is considered to be an extension of public transport. Uber-like
companies (it's not just Uber, MyTaxi/FreeNow suffers from this as well) are
notoriously unreliable if you live in or want to go to places further away
from the city center or otherwise inconvenient for the drivers, or if your
start or destination suggests you might be inconvenient to handle. For
instance, I've had trouble getting a ride to a maternity hospital in the city
center, and only got one after I switched the destination to a nearby beauty
salon. I confirmed this when talking later with the drivers over other rides -
they see the requests to/from hospitals, they just skip them.

In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the
dispatcher is fairer for the passenger.

~~~
lotsofpulp
> In this way, an algorithm is fairer than dispatcher for the drivers, but the
> dispatcher is fairer for the passenger

The algorithm is the dispatcher, and theoretically, would weed out drivers
that discriminate after a certain number of incidents. I don’t see why a human
dispatcher has less reason to discriminate than a driver. Presumably,
discrimination is to maximum use revenue, which is in both the driver and
dispatcher’s interest.

~~~
TeMPOraL
In the places I've ordered taxis via a call, human dispatchers don't usually
know who the passenger is and where they want to go, so they don't get to
discriminate on those.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I imagine if a taxi driver refused to give someone a ride, who was already
told they would get a ride from a dispatcher, because it would lower their
revenue, the dispatcher would not penalize them in any way.

------
sasavilic
I hope that airbnb is next.

------
username90
Uber automated away basically all white collar and managerial jobs from the
taxi industry, no wonder paper pushers have an axe to grind with them. I hope
we see more companies like Uber in the future, automating away paper pushers
is long overdue since it is politically hard or often times even illegal.

------
Animats
Uber was banned in Germany back in 2014.[1] They're still running.

[1] [https://www.cnet.com/news/court-strikes-down-uber-car-
servic...](https://www.cnet.com/news/court-strikes-down-uber-car-service-in-
germany/)

~~~
zaarn
In 2014 Uber was banned from operating like in the US; having a lot of fake-
selfemployed people being paid below minimum wage to drive other people
around.

The new operation was to only dish the rides out to rental companies and using
a bit of trickery to work around the previous ruling and some regulation, that
has been killed off too now.

------
wetpaws
As Austin example demonstrated, once cat is out of the box it's virtually
impossible to ban ride-sharing, people will create a black market using
makeshift apps, Google docs, Facebook groups, etc.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ride sharing isn't a problem, and Uber isn't ride sharing (despite the tech
media insistence on this doublespeak), it's just a pirate taxi.

~~~
onion2k
_a pirate taxi_

That sounds pretty awesome, to be fair.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, I spent a minute or two looking for a different phrasing, but I couldn't
find one. What's the word for pirates that actually form a global organized
crime ring with enough wealth to defy governments?

~~~
cmendel
Either a corporation or a cartel typically.

------
naskwo
IANAL, but it is likely that Uber has a good shot to appeal this at the EU
level:

This ruling is rather incongruent with the recent Airbnb ruling (1) where
Airbnb was ruled to be nothing more than an "information society service".
(Rant: you could apply this label to anything from a public library to a
sadistic secret service.)

Comparable to Uber, Airbnb makes money per transaction, yet claims it is no
more than an information medium.

I used to operate several large classifieds sites in the Netherlands, and am
rather certain that as soon as the platform starts collecting per-transaction
fees, it becomes part of the transaction, as it is in fact a broker between
two parties.

In my (consumer) view: Uber adds value and convenience to a city and threatens
an inefficient and monopolistic status quo (at least here in the Netherlands),
whereas Airbnb turns housing into business cases, for better of for worse (and
in Amsterdam: for worse).

1: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/19/eu-
court-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/19/eu-court-rules-
airbnb-does-not-require-estate-agents-licence)

