Abstract
The following Chapter examines different regulatory approach models applicable when tackling the issue of Uber’s business model’s appearance in the market. In addition, the Chapter focuses on several relevant public policies promoting certain values in common interest that need to be fulfilled when contemplating possible regulation of, among other commercial activities, Uber’s business model. Section 2 examines the benefits and detriments of transportation sector regulation, particularly with regard to Uber’s business model. Section 3 analyzes the noted public policies in more detail, focusing on issues such as public safety and functional public transportation services. Section 4 examines the relevant insurance mechanisms in the transport field, particularly with regard to the relevant passengers’ insurance, motor vehicles liability insurance, and transportation intermediaries’ insurance. Section 5 reviews the relevant factors concerning the quality of service, with several points of interest such as quality standards and drivers’ grading systems. Section 6 examines the Laissez-faire Model in more detail, with a particular focus on several issues, such as potential discrimination barriers connected to Uber’s business model and worst-case scenario analysis. Finally, Sect. 7 analyzes the Legal Adjustment Model, whereas Sect. 8 examines the New Legislative Paradigm Model, detailing different venues of adjusting the regulation or placing forward new regulated modes of public(-private) transportation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, for example: Ramos v. Uber Technologies, Inc. United States District Court, Case No: 5:14-cv-00502, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division, and, Blount v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 965 A.2d 226, 234 (Pa. 2009).
- 2.
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70.
- 3.
For more detailed national law specification, see in this volume Mudrić et al., Comparative Analysis.
- 4.
See, for example, the Croatian law example in this volume Mudrić et al., Comparative Analysis, Section 1.7.
- 5.
See: Wallen v. St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, No. 15-cv-01432 (E.D. Mo.), with regard the limitation of price competition and the use of Uber’s dynamic charge increase model of price determination.
- 6.
As a reference, see: Southern Transportation, Inc. et al. v. Lyft, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02157, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, and, Davis et al. v. Miami-Dade County et al., Case No. 2015-2645-CA-01, in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
- 7.
For more on this issue, see in this volume Mudrić, Nature of Uber Services, Section 2.2.3.
- 8.
Transport for London v Uber London Ltd [2015] EWHC 2918 (Admin).
- 9.
The relevant statutory provisions include: Transport Act 1980, Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907, London Cab Order 1934, Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998, and, Measuring Instruments (Taximeters) Regulations SI 2006 No. 2304.
- 10.
There are, however, recorded cases where attempts are being made to standardize the use of electronic applications (Office of Consumer Affairs 2017).
- 11.
See in this volume Mudrić, Nature of Uber Services, Section 2.2.1.
- 12.
Landgericht Berlin (LG Berlin), 2015, no. 101 O 125/14.
- 13.
LOI n° 2014-1104 du 1er octobre 2014 relative aux taxis et aux voitures de transport avec chauffeur (1), so-called “Loi Thévenoud”, and, LOI n° 2016–1920 du 29 décembre 2016 relative à la régulation, à la responsabilisation et à la simplification dans le secteur du transport public particulier de personnes (1), so-called “Loi Grandguillaume”.
- 14.
Le Conseil constitutionnel, Decision No. 2015-468/469/472 QPC of May 22, 2015, Corporation UBER France SAS et al.
- 15.
California Public Utilities Commission (2016). Decision Adopting Rules and Regulations to Protect Public Safety while allowing New Entrants to the Transportation Industry, Order Instituting Rulemaking on Regulations Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, and New Online-Enabled Transportation Services. The Council of State Governments, Capitol Research: Transport Policy (2016). State Regulation of Rideshare Companies. The TNC model is used in certain areas of Canada (and in other countries, such as Mexico City, Federal District’s Department for Mobility), see for example: Alberta, Traffic Safety Act, Bill 16 amendments, Transportation Safety Amendment Act 2106, and, Ontario, Bill 131, Opportunity in the Sharing Economy Act, 2015.
- 16.
Ühistranspordiseadus RT I, 12.03.2015, 85.
- 17.
Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Decree [2016] No. 60 on Interim Measures for the Administration of Operation and Services of E-hailing Taxis.
- 18.
Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Decree on Interim Measures for the Administrative Provisions on Cruising Taxi Operations and Services.
- 19.
Legislative Assembly, Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) (Taxi Industry Innovation) Amendment Bill 2015 (No 2) (Amendment Bill).
- 20.
Queensland Government, The Queensland Cabinet and Ministerial Directory, Minister for Transport and the Commonwealth Games, The Honourable Stirling Hinchliffe Monday, September 05, 2016.
References
Articles
Davis J (2015) Drive at your own risk: uber violates unfair competition laws by misleading UberX drivers about their insurance coverage. Boston Coll Law Rev 56(3)
Elliott RE (2016) Sharing app or regulation hack(ney)?: defining Uber Technologies Inc. J Corporation Law 41:3
Jin ST, Kong H, Sui DZ (2019) Uber, public transit, and urban transportation equity: a case study in New York City. Prof Geogr
Leiren MD, Aarhaug J (2016) Taxis and crowd-taxis: sharing as a private activity and public concern. Internet Policy Rev 5(2):4
Monographs and Studies
Daus M, Russo P (2015) One standard for all. criminal background checks for taxicab, for—hire, and transportation network company (Tnc) drivers. Jay College of Criminal Justice, of the City University of New York, New York
Fagerli K, Strømsnes A, Langli JC (2000) Taxinæringen i Oslo: Fra svart til hvitt. Report from Handelshøgskolen, BI, Oslo
International Transport Forum (2016) App-based ride and taxi services: principles for regulation. OECD/TIF
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (2015) Transportation network company insurance principles for legislators and regulators. National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Price Waterhouse (1993) Analysis of taxicab deregulation and re-regulation. Price Waterhouse
Rienstra S, Bakker P, Visser J (2015) International comparison of taxi regulations and Uber. KiM Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis
Rosenblat A, Levy KEC, Barocas S, Hwang T (2017) Discriminating tastes: uber’s customer ratings as vehicles for workplace discrimination. Policy and Internet, Policy Studies Organization
Schaller Bruce (2018) The new automobility: lyft, uber and the future of American cities. Schaller Consulting, New York
Transportation Research Board (2016) Between public and private mobility: examining the rise of technology-enabled transportation services. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC
Online Publications
Aivar P (2016) Estonia to regulate Uber and Taxify ride-sharers. Postimees Portal. https://news.postimees.ee/3583509/estonia-to-regulate-uber-and-taxify-ride-sharers. Accessed on 4 Mar 2019
Lu A, Frazier PI, Kislev O (2018) Surge pricing moves uber’s driver-partners. SSRN Portal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3180246. Accessed on 4 Mar 2019
Nelson LJ (2019) L.A. County weighs a tax on Uber and Lyft to curb traffic congestion. Los Angeles Times Portal. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uber-tax-los-angeles-20190226-story.html. Accessed on 4 Mar 2019
Office of Consumer Affairs and The Division of Standards, Government of Massachusetts (2017) The Office of consumer affairs and the division of standards recognize weights and measures week. The Government of Massachusetts Portal. http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/government/oca-agencies/dos-lp/uber-technologies.html. Accessed on 4 Mar 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mudrić, M. (2020). Public Interest and Regulatory Approach. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31535-1_3
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)