EU court of justice has ruled on 20-12-2017 that Uber is not an intermediary but a transportation service and hence state can regulate it as per transportation policy. (Here is media release) The matter of contention was Uber service in Spain where even non-professional driver can register vehicle on Uber and then transport a passenger who has booked through app. The taxi union has objected the competition stemming from 'non-professional' drivers.
Uber has portrayed itself as an app that connects two parties, one which has a demand for transport and other which can supply this transport. Uber emphasizes the operation of 'connecting demand with supply' and that's how they define the product or platform they are providing. In Uber's point of view. Uber sells platform service to both, buyer and seller.
The way court ruling has defined Uber is 'provider of non-public transport service which uses intermediation through app'. The court has emphasized that Uber connects not demand and supply, but demand and supply of 'transport services'. It seems matter of what has greater emphasis.
It seems that Uber has tried defining themselves in a way they are not perceived by lot of consumers of their service. The digital platform of Uber is used only for the sell and purchase of transportation services. That is the dominant perception in consumers' minds. Hence Uber's emphasis of Uber being simply an intermediation service looks hollow. If there would have been multiple commodities purchased and sold by the intermediation provided by Uber, then Uber could have credibly portrayed itself as 'provider of intermediation services'.
--
What if Amazon launches taxi-hailing as part of its digital platform? If I am the seller, I register my services on Amazon app and someone who needs them buys it, as one buys a book or a shampoo from seller. In that case, how will regulators will treat this sell-purchase?
What is at stake here how do we define any service or act of trade. It is not possible to see only 'bringing together' part of sell-purchase of services. 'Bringing together' or 'platform services' are overruled by regulations that are applicable to what is being bought and sold. Otherwise, sex trade or other illicit or harmful trades can take place with the help of platform services and yet platform services cannot be considered guilty. This clearly seems unagreeable. In the same vein, Uber cannot be seen simply as an intermediary but has to be thought of as an intermediation which is part of trade of some particular service and hence regulation of such particular service is applicable to Uber.
--
What if Uber or any firm/anyone develops an app that simply shows vehicles with vacancy to individuals in need of transport and then drivers and passengers negotiate among themselves and they donate something to the app, but it is possible to use it for free?
There is clearly a question of safety at stake here. But at the same time, if two individuals agree to share their information on 'charitable' platform, what exactly is wrong with it? A utilitarian will sense that loss of unrealized transaction can be much greater than saving on unsafe incidences.
--
Uber being regulated is not much of worry. The worry is unchecked nuisance of Taxi-unions. Taxi unions keep prices high and ensure that there is no rapid increase in demand, in turn ensuring profits for members. The case of welfare loss is very evident in such market. State should force Uber and other providers to get professional drivers and registered commercial vehicles, but should check the unions too.
--
I dread the day if it ever happens that Auto and Taxi fares in Mumbai will also apply to Ola and Uber.
Uber has portrayed itself as an app that connects two parties, one which has a demand for transport and other which can supply this transport. Uber emphasizes the operation of 'connecting demand with supply' and that's how they define the product or platform they are providing. In Uber's point of view. Uber sells platform service to both, buyer and seller.
The way court ruling has defined Uber is 'provider of non-public transport service which uses intermediation through app'. The court has emphasized that Uber connects not demand and supply, but demand and supply of 'transport services'. It seems matter of what has greater emphasis.
It seems that Uber has tried defining themselves in a way they are not perceived by lot of consumers of their service. The digital platform of Uber is used only for the sell and purchase of transportation services. That is the dominant perception in consumers' minds. Hence Uber's emphasis of Uber being simply an intermediation service looks hollow. If there would have been multiple commodities purchased and sold by the intermediation provided by Uber, then Uber could have credibly portrayed itself as 'provider of intermediation services'.
--
What if Amazon launches taxi-hailing as part of its digital platform? If I am the seller, I register my services on Amazon app and someone who needs them buys it, as one buys a book or a shampoo from seller. In that case, how will regulators will treat this sell-purchase?
What is at stake here how do we define any service or act of trade. It is not possible to see only 'bringing together' part of sell-purchase of services. 'Bringing together' or 'platform services' are overruled by regulations that are applicable to what is being bought and sold. Otherwise, sex trade or other illicit or harmful trades can take place with the help of platform services and yet platform services cannot be considered guilty. This clearly seems unagreeable. In the same vein, Uber cannot be seen simply as an intermediary but has to be thought of as an intermediation which is part of trade of some particular service and hence regulation of such particular service is applicable to Uber.
--
What if Uber or any firm/anyone develops an app that simply shows vehicles with vacancy to individuals in need of transport and then drivers and passengers negotiate among themselves and they donate something to the app, but it is possible to use it for free?
There is clearly a question of safety at stake here. But at the same time, if two individuals agree to share their information on 'charitable' platform, what exactly is wrong with it? A utilitarian will sense that loss of unrealized transaction can be much greater than saving on unsafe incidences.
--
Uber being regulated is not much of worry. The worry is unchecked nuisance of Taxi-unions. Taxi unions keep prices high and ensure that there is no rapid increase in demand, in turn ensuring profits for members. The case of welfare loss is very evident in such market. State should force Uber and other providers to get professional drivers and registered commercial vehicles, but should check the unions too.
--
I dread the day if it ever happens that Auto and Taxi fares in Mumbai will also apply to Ola and Uber.