Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 76))

  • 966 Accesses

Abstract

The following chapter introduces the overall subject of analysis. The first part offers basic information on what sort of an enterprise Uber and similar companies represent, placing such companies into the context of global competition. A special focus is placed on whether Uber’s business model represents a true disruption of traditional models of carriage of passengers’ services in general, or whether it represents a disruption in terms of a law violation. Similarly, the Introduction chapter examines to what extents the term “Uberification” represents positive appearances in the transportation market, and in what cases it connotes negative manifestations in commercial and consumer practices (such as monopoly aspirations, labor-related issues, forced arbitration issues, security issues, data protection issues, traffic, and public transport related issues, taxation issues and similar). Finally, a separate section is devoted to the issue of legal sanctions in general.

It should be noted that certain terms used through-out the monograph have the same meaning (i.e., Uber’s application/Uber’s digital platform/Uber’s digital service; transportation options/transportation services; Uber drivers/Uber partner drivers; Uber’s service/Uber service; and similar), whereas some terms are specifically meant as points of differentiation (i.e., public transport refers to transport in general; public transportation refers to both public and private transportation options; public-private or private transportation refer to the providers of taxi services and rent-a-car with driver services; and similar). In addition, some terms, although refereeing to a particular object, have a broader meaning (i.e., when referring to the term Uber’s business model, the same is, in general terms, applicable to all other companies (mentioned in the present chapter and other places) offering similar kinds of services and employing a similar business model). Finally, through-out monograph the term Uber service refers to the particular categories of Uber services designed to carry passengers by road. Uber, however, tends to offer a plethora of different services (i.e., “Uber”, “UberX”, “UberXL”, “UberPOP”, “UberBLACK”, “UberSELECT”, “UberSUV”, “UberLUX”, “UberBERLINE”, “UberVAN”, “UberEXEC” “UberFRESH”, “UberRUSH”, “UberEATS”, and others), some of which are designated to carry passengers, some goods, whereas others offer totally different kinds of services (such as renting electric bikes and scooters). It should, finally, be stressed that a particular service, for example UberX, offered in one jurisdiction, does not necessarily correspond to a service of the same name offered in another jurisdiction, having in mind that Uber tends to adapt, as much as possible, to particular conditions in particular jurisdictions, in order to (at least try to) fulfill certain goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are, however, opposing views on this matter, placing forward arguments with regard possible Uber’s privatization of public transportation options (Buchanan 2015).

  2. 2.

    See, for example: the New York City Council, establishing minimum payments to for-hire vehicle drivers and authorizing the establishment of minimum rates of fare, Law no. 2018/150. 14 August 2018, approved by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission on 4 December 2018.

  3. 3.

    Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, No. S222732 (Cal. Sup. Ct. April 30, 2018).

  4. 4.

    David Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Canada, Inc., Uber B.V. and Rasier Operation B.V., 2019 ONCA 1, DATE: 20190102, DOCKET: C65073.

  5. 5.

    See, for example: Spencer MEYER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Travis KALANICK, and Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendants, 291 F.Supp.3d 526 (2018).

  6. 6.

    Jolyon Toby Denis Maugham QC v Uber London Limited, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Claim No. HC-2017001496, 15 June 2017.

  7. 7.

    Uber B.V v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110.

  8. 8.

    C-320/16, Uber France SAS, Nabil Bensalem, ECLI:EU:C:2018:221, p. 33.

  9. 9.

    2016. évi LXXV. törvény az engedély nélkül, személygépkocsival végzett személyszállító szolgáltatáshoz kapcsolódó jogkövetkezményekről.

  10. 10.

    Incidente de apelación de clausura preventiva art. 29 LPC en autos UBER SRL s/infr. 83 CC, Docket 4790-02-CC/2016, 5 May 2016; followed by the decision of first Instance Court on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters No. 15 of the City of Buenos Aires, “Federal District’s Taxi Drivers Union et al. v. Government of the City of Buenos Aires”, Docket C3065-2016/0, decision dated April 13, 2016, directing the City of Buenos Aires to cease all Uber activities in its area.

References

Articles

  • Berger T, Chen C, Frey CB (2018) Drivers of disruption? Estimating the Uber effect. Eur Econ Rev

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond AT (2015) An app for that: local governments and the rise of the sharing economy. Notre Dame Law Rev 90(2):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan M (2015) The Uber endgame. The Awl portal. https://www.theawl.com/2015/08/the-uber-endgame/. Accessed on 4 Mar 2019

  • Calo R, Rosenblat A (2017) The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Columbia Law Rev 117

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan H (2017) Will the growth of Uber increase economic welfare? Transp Law J 44:33

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiren MD, Aarhaug J (2016) Taxis and crowd-taxis: sharing as a private activity and public concern. Internet Policy Rev 5(2):4

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul SM (2017) Uber as for-profit hiring hall: a price-fixing paradox and its implications. Berkeley J Employ Labor Law 38:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelzer P, Frenken K, Boon W (2018) Institutional entrepreneurship in the platform economy: how Uber tried (and failed) to change the Dutch taxi law. Environ Innov Soc Transit 2210-4224

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers B (2015) The social costs of Uber. Univ Chic Law Rev Dialog 82:85

    Google Scholar 

  • Shokoohyar S (2018) Ride-sharing platforms from drivers’ perspective: evidence from Uber and Lyft drivers. Int J Data Netw Sci 2

    Google Scholar 

Monographs and Studies

  • Anchustegui IH, Nowag J (2017) How the Uber & Lyft case provides an impetus to re-examine buyer power in the world of big data and algorithms. Lund University legal research paper series. Lund Comp Working Paper No. 01/2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo F, Maciejewski M (2015) Social, economic and legal consequences of Uber and similar transportation network companies (TNCs). European Parliament, DG IPOL policy department B—structural and cohesion policies, PE 563.398

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte Access Economics (2016) Economic effects of ridesharing in Australia: Uber. Deloitte Access Economics

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell D, Greig F, Hamoudi A (2018) The online platform economy in 2018: drivers, workers, sellers and lessors. JPMorgan Chase Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • International Transport Forum (2016) Regulation of for-hire passenger transport: Portugal in international comparison. OECD/TIF

    Google Scholar 

  • San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2014) Taxis and accessible services division. Status of taxi industry. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

    Google Scholar 

Online Publications

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mišo Mudrić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mudrić, M. (2020). Introduction. In: Marin, J., Petrović, S., Mudrić, M., Lisičar, H. (eds) Uber—Brave New Service or Unfair Competition. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 76. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31535-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31535-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31534-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31535-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics