Uber France

How France is becoming Uber’s biggest nightmare

Yesterday morning, Uber’s France and Western Europe heads were taken into custody in the wake of last week’s Uber POP — taxi battle. They, along with their company, will go on trial in September to answer to a series of accusations, ranging from illegal dealings (not paying charges) to illegal possession of data (keeping clients’ personal data without their knowledge or approval). Is that fair? Is that true? Does that even make sense? A couple of points:

• Uber vs Uber POP: the reason these guys — and their company — are in trouble is Uber POP, the private driver to private user service, not the Uber X service (or any other), with professional drivers holding a special license to carry passengers. The issue is not about Uber as a whole — although the French government quite actively tries to limit its reach — , but about that specific Lyft-like business model.
• Concept vs acts: Uber’s concept is great. It has created a radically new service, which is in about every way better than its predecessor, the taxi, especially in Paris. Which is why French taxis, who paid their licence +200k€ and who see its value decrease rapidly, are particularly angry: their is no real way for them to fight Uber. Uber is just better. However, there is a difference between a great concept and its implementation: if, in the way it is managed, Uber fails to pay certain charges or taxes, it should be sued — and lose. If it keeps client data illegally — although I don’t see that topic as a crucial one, but that’s another story — , it should be sentenced. But for these specific reasons.
• Uber vs other tech giants: What is quite surprising to me it that Uber is being treated in such a violent and prompt way — arresting its executives, putting it on trial — when other companies aren’t. We quite famously know that established tech companies — see Google — don’t exactly pay fair taxes on French soil. Interestingly, however, there has so far been no serious action taken against them. I find it surprising that Uber, which only launched in France about 3 years ago, is already the target of a massive legal procedure, whereas Google, which has been operating for quite a few more years, is left untouched. Would it be because Uber is (still) smaller than Google? Because it has already been weakened by a series of controversies? Basically, because it’s easier?
• Uber vs the French taxis: the reason that story exploded in France is that, last week, French taxis went on strike to protest Uber in general, and Uber POP in particular, which led to a couple of rather sordid stories of cars getting smashed and customers getting hurt. The French taxis’ reaction is obviously one of fear: the old system vs the new. And, as always in times of changes, the old will do anything to stop the new from taking over, until the new, inevitably, wins. This is what is slowly but surely taking place before our eyes. Taxi drivers will undoubtedly lose money and business in the process, but that is very largely a consequence of taxi companies’ unwillingness to adapt to changing customer needs and new technological tools. Until the new — Uber — comes along and makes their frozen monopoly implode. To taxi drivers, I say: go work for Uber. They hire.

In short, Uber’s upcoming legal battle is a mix of fair accusations, an overall climate of hostility towards change and a rather biased focus on 1 tech company’s dealings. Whatever happens in September, it’s already too little too late: instead of trying to kill Uber when it has already — in effect — taken over, its competitors had better focus on improving their service — if they can. As for lawmakers, how about acting consistently towards all tech companies?