>>> I think there's also not that much room for disruption in the Uber case, at least in Germany
I suspect there is, otherwise there would be no need to ban it.
I suspect there is, otherwise there would be no need to ban it.
Is this not a ban? Are you saying Uber drivers weren't following the regulations every other driver in Germany has to follow - they were not obeying traffic laws, not holding driving licenses, etc.? No, they didn't follow additional regulations that not everybody has to follow.
The German courts disagree with you on that one. You can like it or not but they get to have the last say in this.
Take for instance the FDA that heavily heavily regulates the US market. I could argue that I as a customer should be able to choose myself what I eat and drink, yet that's not the case.
You may call that cartel, mafia, whatever you want but it's how administrations work..
It's only UberPop, which tries to operate without a license as a for-profit service.
And imagine a UberPop driver hits you with his car – he would be not insured (regular insurance doesn't cover commercial activity), so you would have to pay your own medical treatment (getting broken bones together, etc) on your own, because the driver had no license.
So no, it's not a ban. It's the requirement to make business akin to getting your business registered.
Transporting people for money is heavily regulated in Germany on various grounds, one being safety, others are that Taxis count as public transport in germany and must fulfill certain obligations ranging from mandatory service for anyone at the same rate to transporting disabled people to the doctor (yes, that's done by Taxis as long as those people can still enter a Taxi). Uber is avoiding the regulations in an attempt to save money and be more profitable. This has been judged as an unfair business practice and so Uber faces two options: Stop offering UberPop or comply with the regulations.
The fact that private insurances don't cover commercial rides has a multitude of reasons, one of them is that statistically speaking it's more likely that a commercial driver has an accident since he's more likely to get a significantly higher mileage and more likely to drive at night. But that's a deal between the insurance company and the driver, the law only cares that you own a valid insurance, not about the exact terms.
Since it's mandatory in Germany to be insured when you drive a car, that becomes Ubers's culprit, that they chose to ignore, potentially at the cost of leaving someone without insurance coverage in case of an accident.
That is unacceptable by the German rules and that's why the decision has been made in an express decision by the court.
1) take a parcel from your home to the post office. Have an accident on the way.
2) take a parcel from your employer to the post office. Have an accident on the way.
In 1) you're probably insured. In 2) you're probably not insured.
This small amount of extra regulation covers every commercial operator.
Nobody claimed (at least in this case) that Uber itself should be banned - UberBlack is unaffected by this injunction. Ubers unfair business practices have been banned.
Now how do you argue that the requirements are not minimum? How do you pay for the damage? Do you expect legal protection from Uber? Do you think they would provide you with that, in Germany?
Do you actually know about the legal system in Germany or how can you make a statement about the level of requirements?
Most peoples cars are parked at least 20h a day. Taxis on the other hand are often operated in shifts and are in operation 24/7. This has significant effects on how much maintenance is required, how likely an accident is etc. this in turn results in potentially higher costs for insurance, requires more frequent checkups.
In addition a driver's license in Germany never expires, unless you violate any laws you can never lose it. That may or may not be reasonable for people driving a private car, it's a lot less reasonable for people operating a car commercially and potentially with passengers. Passengers who have the reasonable expectation of having a driver who's healthy enough to drive.