Uber to ignore German ban despite being ruled 'illegal' | Hacker News Reader

Uber to ignore German ban despite being ruled 'illegal'

wired.co.uk

28 pointsASquare79 comments

As a German I'd say ignoring local laws and regulations is not a promising way to do business here in Germany or the EU.

I think Uber is overlooking the fact that EU has much better consumer protections in place, than those in the US. Lets see if it pays off for them.

Yeah, why should it matter that your business model is illegal/regulatory arbitrage? Progress!

They're certainly consistently aggressive no matter where they are...

God, what a bunch of d-bags. We live in a society of laws, and you don't get to just ignore the courts, whether you're the NSA or Uber.

Here's hoping Germany seizes all their accounts with German banks.

I agree Uber is a bunch of d-bags but you are completely wrong.

You do get to disobey the courts. It's called civil disobedience. You disobey them. You take your licks. It's a cornerstone of progress.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or a threat to society. That's an entirely separate judgment we must make.

If a court issues a specific injunction telling you, as an individual, not to do X, and you go ahead and do X, then you would get punished severely--up to and including jail time.

The problem, as I see it, is that we aren't holding large organizations accountable to nearly the same degree as private citizens.

If they violate the injuction, the director of their EU subsidiary can go to jail. Its in the documents.

Also they can be fined up to 250k per ride. I don't think they're getting a slap on the wrist here.

My opinion is unpopular but I disagree. There are a lot of bad regulations and sometimes it's nice to see people get around them. Mainly when the parties involved are doing it voluntarily and not hurting anyone else. How could anyone be upset over a victimless crime?

On the front page there is an article on an anonymous drug market. Somehow it's not full of hateful comments ranting at the users and creators or the Tor project. A few even support it, some claim to have used them, some giving ideas on how to improve or use them safely, etc.

> Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride. (via the Deutsche Welle article)

Is the plan to also ignore the massive fines that are likely to result?

I think the press got this wrong. The max possible fine is 250.000 per trial.

Is it the Uber app/office or Uber drivers that will continue to work despite the ban? They can say what they want in the press releases, but it's the drivers that are at risk and will be making the decision.

(or did I misunderstand and it's actually the company that will get fined?)

It appears to be the drivers who will be fined.

The injunction is against the company, actually against Uber BV located in the Netherlands, not against Uber GmbH located in Germany (Uber is trying to pull the corporate tricks of shifting responsibility around by assigning only "Marketing Duties" to its German subsidary). The juicy part is that instead of a monetary fine, the fine can also be up to 6 month of jail for the Director of Uber BV. That's unlikely to happen, but I'd like to see them disrupt "prison time".

Here is the specific sentence from the Deutsche Welle article that is relevant to this question:

"Violations will result in a fine against Uber of 250,000 euros ($328,108) per ride."

So at least according to that story, Uber will be fined, not the drivers.

Is this something they can take to court and tie up in the court system while they continue to break the law?

Not an expert on German law so forgive me if I'm way off base.

AFAIK no. This is a court granted injunction and can be enforced. If Uber continues to offer services their court opponent needs to demand that it's enforced and then they could try and tie that up, but that's unlikely to fly. An appeal should not delay, though the injunction may be overturned later.

I recall from Florian Mueller’s coverage of German patent cases that when a preliminary injunction is not immediately enforced once it is issued. The other party has to post a bond first, so that the enjoined party can recover damages if it later turns out that the injunction was wrongly issued. Is that also true in this case? That could explain why Uber will continue operating for now.

If the injunction was granted in error, the requesting party may be liable for damages. I don't know if a bond is required. This is how Über bullied the winning party into not enforcing the injunction last time they lost a similar case in Berlin. However, this time the opposing party is not a small 10 people company, but a larger union. I don't expect that this will work this time.

250k euros per ride? How do they justify that?

It's one of the rare cases where we have punitive damages in the German legal system: lawmakers _really_ don't like willful infringement after a judge said "no", and adjust things to the economic capabilities. with 1.5b$ in the bank, 300k$ sounds about right ;-)

The idea is to get the violator to stop breaking the law. It's less about fairness and more about deterring criminal behavior. That's the justification.

Sounds pretty similar to the much-derided MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. This probably won't work out too well for the German government PR-wise, at least around here.

> Sounds pretty similar to the much-derided MPAA/RIAA lawsuits.

Yes, if you dismiss the fact that Uber is a millions-of-dollars business and the individuals targeted by the much-derided MPAA/RIAA lawsuits were not.

If the fine is too high for them, how about not breaking the order and so not incurring it?

The injunction is against Uber B.V., the netherland company that "services" Germany.

It forbids Uber B.V. to use the "Uber" and the "UberPop" app to provide drivers to customers unless drivers have a license or the total revenue made is less than the driver's operating costs (ie. it's non-commercial ride sharing)

That's even more interesting if it's not a German company. I was wondering if Germany could request the records and fine them for all rides after the ban rather than just the one they're caught doing. But if the company is not under their control it may be quite hard.

I'll be following this with interest... can't guess what's going to happen now.

> That's even more interesting if it's not a German company.

It's all europe now, so that should only delay the inevitable. Still, I'm a curious as you are what's Ubers next move. I don't believe they're stupid enough to just ignore the ruling.

What exactly do I gain by using Uber? I see it's all the rage on the internet, but I still fail to grasp what exactly it is that I'm gaining through its usage. I'm from a medium-sized city (500k-1m) in Central (or Eastern?) Europe and I can use either public transportation or get a cab literally wherever I may be.

Why would I want to have a non-registered driver who does not adhere to taxi-standards pick me up and pay provision to a multi-billion dollar company that's trying to set itself up as a monopoly?

What niche is Uber filling in that I'm unaware of? Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?

Taxis in america (especially San Francisco, where Uber is from) are horrible and downright dangerous. Even the shittiest Uber drivers are better than the average taxi driver. And even if you wanted to hail a cab, your best bet is to try to hail one on the street, because if you call, there's a 50+% chance your taxi won't even show up.

And let's not even get into the joke that we call public transportation here.

This is the problem it solves. A problem that is not nearly as pronounced in Europe.

This is absolutely untrue. I have taken taxis very often in many US cities including SF while I lived in the Bay Area. Many drivers drive for both taxi services and Uber depending on the day. How is the same exact driver suddenly dangerous in a taxi as opposed to his own car hailed via a smartphone app?

The average taxi driver wouldn't make it as an Uber driver, only the superior drivers can sustain a 4.6+ rating.

Uber is extremely draconian when it comes to driver quality. Any driver whose average dips below 4.6 is out. Period. That ensures quality and weeds the bad drivers out.

Sure, there are good taxi drivers, but the average driver is horrible. I was comparing them by saying that, say, the 50th percentile cabbie (median), is worse than even the 5th percentile (worst) Uber driver.

> The average taxi driver wouldn't make it as an Uber driver, only the superior drivers can sustain a 4.6+ rating.

Then why is that many taxi drivers drive for Uber as well? Where are you getting these numbers? Or are you maybe just falling for marketing?

Also, in NYC and SF plenty of people rent out their account to other drivers. People sign up for Uber and never drive a single passenger so the rating is really not much more than a rented token in some cases.

Put it this way then:

In America, there is a widespread perception that Taxi companies have shit service, and that Taxi drivers are frequently untrustworthy or discriminatory.

Whether or not the perception is accurate, it is definitely true that the perception exists. Uber provides value to American consumers because American consumers find that the faults they perceive in traditional taxi services do not apply to Uber.

Lest you doubt that I am correct: I am an American, and the above are my beliefs. I can assure you that I have stated my beliefs accurately.

I made an earlier comment about that perception you have. You are likely and upper class US citizen who looks down on things like taxis and the bus. If "providing value" means playing into stereotypes, then I guess you are correct. I also am an US Citizen, born and raised, and your comments make be believe that you are a bigot against the lower classes and see them as dirty. Or maybe your issue is that there are too many non whites driving taxis. I can assure you that I have stated my beliefs accurately.

As a side note, the term "value" has been so overused at this point that when people use it I tend to think they are idealists and I don't take their comments as seriously as if they had not used the term.

> You are likely and upper class US citizen who looks down on things like taxis and the bus.

Lolno. I own a car, but commute every day by bus. I am middle class but, surprise surprise, still have places I want to get to. The only success I have ever had with taxis is if I ambush them when they are waiting outside of airports and train stations. Calling them is always a unmitigated shit-fest. This is both Seattle and Philadelphia. Philadelphia is significantly worse; cabs are unhailable (unless you ambush them at 30th street station) and they hang up on you when you give them an address in west or north philly.

> Or maybe your issue is that there are too many non whites driving taxis.

Eat shit and fuck off.

I completely disagree here. The NYC Uber driver I rode with was checking his GPS and phone literally the whole time, whereas Taxi drivers I've been with almost always know their way around really well. I've called cabs to arrive at 3-4AM and drive me to the airport several times without issue.

It's nice when there's an Uber available a mere 1-5 minutes away, and that they have an app for tracking them, but I don't see how taxi companies couldn't replicate this exact service.

Are you kidding? The dirty look NYC taxi drivers give you when you're there for the first time and tell them an address instead of the cross-streets... I'll take GPS guy any day.

In the US especially, automobiles are a symbol of economic status. I have not driven for the majority of my adult life and when people discover this they often think I am poor, lower class or lost my license due to drinking and driving etc. This extends to the usage of public transit and taxis. Uber, because it requires an expensive smart phone, balances that because the smart phone is also symbol of economic status. Launching as a premium product before UberX helped as well.

So using Uber is seen as "choosing" not to drive where as using public transit or a taxi is seen as "no being capable" of driving.

Its not that its any better(or worse) than a taxi or a private car you can call in most cities.

The "status" element never even occurred to me and recall that Uber also has Uber X which doesn't confer the status of the "black car" and is basically about the same as Lyft. I think in most urban environments, parking is a royal pain, cars get broken into regularly and it's just not worth the hassle for a small premium payment.

To me cabs are very limited in where they will pick up and the hours they operate. They often don't come or only pick up at designated areas. With Uber/Lyft they come to you. I've had cabs ignore me or just not show up at the appointed time.

With Uber or other ride sharing you pay through the app so you don't take a $70 cab ride after which the driver says they only take cash. You see exactly where there are cars in your vicinity. The drivers get feedback which determines if they will get future rides so they are often much more polite and friendly (though I haven't had TERRIBLE experiences in cabs I haven't had as pleasant ones as I have in Lyft or Uber).

I have also often seen cabs take the long way to boost their fees. Lyft is usually quite a bit cheaper than cabs but not sure about Uber X/Uber.

Some cab companies are starting to come up with their own apps in some areas to compete with the ride sharing companies.

Interesting, so you are more of the, I use self checkout because I'd rather not deal with a person type. That is definitely another part of how Uber is successful. For example having to think about tipping etc.

In short, the "niche" service Uber provides fills a huge gap in the progress of ride sharing and the transportation industry across the U.S. When you take that into consideration, it is no longer a niche, but a big step forward to opening a conversation about technology in these industries.

I use Uber in London simply because I don't carry cash (who does any more?) If I hail a taxi off the street it more than likely won't take cards. So I take Uber instead, as I know they do.

> Is this the re-invention of an mp3-player as an iPod? Because it sounds cool?

The iPod was much more than a cool sounding mp3 player. The big failing of the mp3 players at the time was terrible software for ripping, managing, and syncing music. iPod provided a hardware and software combination that worked infinitely better than the hardware and software combination provided out of the box by the competition.

There's nothing else Uber could have done. If they withdrew from Germany, even only temporarily, it'd be seen as a way to restrict Uber's business in every country they operate in. It'd pretty much be an admission that they don't know if they're operating legally.

While the German government are threatening to fine drivers Uber are still ok. If the government actually fines someone successfully, I imagine Uber will be in big trouble.

The injunction is against the company. Drivers cannot be fined on this basis (but certainly on regulator grounds, that's a different issue altogether)

> There's nothing else Uber could have done.

How about... complying with the regulation? I.e. requiring their drivers buy commercial insurance?

In any case, I love this development. I can't wait either an US company getting fined (or the CEO jailed) for not understanding EU culture, or Germany losing face when trying to beat a US company into submission.

The company in question (Uber B.V.) is in the Netherlands. Because Uber GmbH (in Germany) doesn't have the balls to run this scheme themselves - that would incur a _real_ risk to have their director jailed for 6 months.

I'm pretty sure a German court can have someone in Netherlands jailed...

It's hardly that linear. See e.g. Klaas Carel Faber.

When Uber re-launched quasi-legally in Austin, TX, some drivers there told me Uber promised to pay any fines they incurred. Whether the German government fines Uber and/or the drivers, maybe they're just hoping to throw money at the problem.

If they do I'll hail Uber cars all day and report. It's 250k a pop, let's see how fast we can transfer 16B USD to germanys funds :)

With any kind of attempt at real enforcement, they can't pay. It's a quarter-million euros a pop. If they do a very conservative 10,000 rides in Germany this week, that's 2.5 billion euros.

If Uber loses its appeal on this, and then continues to ignore the court's ruling, then I think this will be a story. Until then, I'd say that Uber will continue to operate and the court won't do much about it, while the appeal is pending.

It's not the courts decision to do or not do anything about it. This as a civil case based on the laws on unfair competition, so it's their competitors [1] choice to enforce or not. IANAL, but as far as I know an appeal will not delay this time. Uber might bully the competitor into not enforcing as they did with the taxi company that won a similar case in Berlin, but it's much less likely since this time it's not a small business running 10 cabs like last time.

[1] roughly the equivalent of the german taxi company union

Is it impossible for Uber drivers to obtain commercial licences? It seems that is the concern here.

No, they could. It just wouldn't be (as) profitable.

Pfffffff sounds like the law already existed and a court has simply acknowledged Uber's drivers are breaking it - we'll see how profitable having to pay heavy fines is.

Fine amount seems cruel and unusual. $250k for giving someone a ride? Really?

It's that high because Uber did not comply to earlier requests. Early fines were 1k a pop, this is the repeat offender bonus. (still, it's up to 250k).

The fine isn't for giving someone a ride; it's for willfully defying a court order.

Good. It seems bizarre that something as ordinary as a trip in a car needs extensive regulations. Obsolete laws should be challenged.

You might think so, but there are a surprisingly large number of ways a trip in a car can go wrong.

I feel like people should spend some time in Southeast Asia where families travel around on motorbikes five at a time with no helmets and smiles on their faces. I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.

Except our commutes to work / meeting would be 5x as long due to unpredictable travel patterns, causing us to achieve significantly less in any given 24 hour period.

(I remember my first trip to India (Mumbai) being 3 hours late to a meeting because I didn't account for the delays an basically unregulated road transport system can cause...)

I wouldn't say the traffic is any worse than the 401 in Toronto or any of the major freeways in LA. I can get all the way across Hanoi at rush hour in an hour tops on a $300 Chinese knockoff motorcycle that gets 2L/100km. Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here.

> "Well worth the safety tradeoff to me and everyone else here."

It's a tradeoff for a wealthy Canadian traveling the world. It's a matter of necessity for most other people.

The level of privilege in these posts of yours is frustrating. People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.

> People aren't stupid, they're aware of the risks, they choose not to dwell on them so they can live their lives - but that doesn't mean they won't choose lower risk if it was available to them.

Given that the locals like to

a) make fun of my western helmet and gloves

b) don't bother to wear even the cheap local helmets available

c) take needless risks like running reds, driving drunk, and driving on the wrong side of the street

I'd have to disagree with this assessment.

It'd be nice if you all commented instead of mashing the downvote button. I believe there's a real psychological cost to being afraid of every little thing.

We're not talking about washing your hands with disinfectant every time you open a door, we're talking about car accidents here. Have you ever seen one? You're trying to be cocky and all, but you have no idea of what you are talking about.

And it's not only about my own personal risk, it's about people I know getting into accidents. Keep your 0.1% of fatal accident risk, assume you know 200 people and do the math to find out the chance than at least one of you will get into one. You'll be surprised, it's more than 80%.

Everybody dies and frankly I'm much more terrified of making it to 75 and getting Alzheimer's or prostate cancer than a quick violent death at 23.

I did, in fact I grew up in a Southeast Asian country where the primary mode of transport are scooters. From a young age I learned how to tuck myself in the "well" of a Vespa between my father and the handlebars so we can get from place to place.

It was scary then, it's still scary now. We didn't do it because it was safe or comfortable, we did it because cars were unaffordable, parking even more so, and you still had to get places.

Everyone knows someone who got into a motorbike accident, everyone knows someone who got injured this way. It is a transport mode of necessity, not something to be celebrated. It is also one of many reasons my family ultimately emigrated to the West.

It's not really about fear of dying, although I think it's good for people taking strangers' lives into their hands on a regular basis to be under more scrutiny. It includes drivers ripping off passengers in many ways, refusing passengers based on race or gender, and refusing to go to certain places. You really have to be extra careful about such systematic abuses.

> 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05%

Even with your own arbitrary numbers, you're casually talking about a 2x increase in the number of fatal accidents, which is not a small number to begin with in any country with significant car ownership.

Also, the real statistics indicate the difference is more like 5-10x that of Germany, per capita:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...

Car pooling messes with the numbers too much for me to be sure, but the fatality per vehicle rate is 15x in India compared to the US and 62x in Afghanistan.

>>> I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05% and we'd all be happier if we adopted that mentality instead of regulating everything halfway to hell and back.

You do realize there's a reason wearing seat belts in most states is required by law?

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2009/New+Stu...

"A U.S. Department of Transportation study released today estimates that 1,652 lives could be saved and 22,372 serious injuries avoided each year on America’s roadways if seat belt use rates rose to 90 percent in every state. The new research report, based on 2007 data, also estimates that seat belts saved a stunning 15,147 lives that year. The study’s findings were released today as the Department launched its “Click It or Ticket” nationwide enforcement campaign."

>I just don't care if I have a 0.1% chance of dying instead of 0.05%

A 0.1% chance of dying per ride would mean a 51% probability of dying within a year of daily commuting.

Why do we have to drive on a particular side of the road, anyway?

Or stop at a red light? Why are we letting lights limit our freedoms?!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com