Policy Implications of the Comparative Findings

Önay, Işık; Ayata, Zeynep

doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7035-3_12

Işık Önay³ &
Zeynep Ayata³

532 Accesses

Abstract

Individual contributions from the countries within the scope of our study have shown that the legal challenges posed by Uber are diverse. This chapter aims to provide an overview and a comparison of the identified challenges within a subject-based framework. The first section deals with market access, a challenge common to all countries studied here and elsewhere. The second section of this chapter focuses on the relationship between Uber and its drivers and questions whether this is an employment relationship. The following section deals with consumer protection and civil liability whereas the last two sections pertain to antitrust and tax issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.
2.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 2.1.
3.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.1.
4.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 2.
5.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 3.3.
6.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
7.
Chapter 11: Turkey, Sect. 6.3.
8.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 3.1.
9.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.3.
10.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 2.
11.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 2.2.
12.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.1.2.
13.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 4.
14.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 5.
15.
Judgment of 20 Dec 2017 in Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL. ECLI:EU:C:2017:981.
16.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.2.
17.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 3.1.
18.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 3.1.
19.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.2.
20.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 2.
21.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 2.
22.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 3.
23.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.2.
24.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 5.
25.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.2.
26.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
27.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
28.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
29.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 2.
30.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 2.
31.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.1.
32.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.1.
33.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.1.
34.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.1.1.
35.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.1.1.
36.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.1.1.
37.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 1.2.
38.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 2.1.
39.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 2.3.
40.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 2.3.
41.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 3.
42.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.2.
43.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 3.
44.
E.g., Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 6; Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 3.
45.
ILO (2016).
46.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 3.
47.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.3.
48.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 3.
49.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.2.
50.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 3.3.
51.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 6.
52.
Chapter 11: Turkey, Sect. 4.2.
53.
Aslam v Uber BV (2017).
54.
Aslam v Uber BV (2017), p. 89; see Footnote 43; Prassl (2018), pp. 98–99, Mudrić (2019), pp. 24–26.
55.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.4.
56.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 3.
57.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 6; Chap. 11: Turkey, Sect. 4.2
58.
For challenges regarding multiple persons exercising different traditional employer functions in the gig economy, see Prassl (2018), pp. 103–104.
59.
On social protection of digital platform workers, also see Eurofound (2018), pp. 22–24 (cited as Eurofound Report hereafter).
60.
ILO (2018).
61.
Prassl (2018), pp. 91 ff.
62.
Ibid., (pp. 101–102).
63.
Mudrić (2019), p. 54.
64.
For empirical estimates of the extent of work on digital platforms, see Eurofound Report (2018), pp. 22–24.
65.
Council Directive 93/113/EEC (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993).
66.
Directive 2005/29/EC (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005).
67.
Marin (2019), p. 205.
68.
Directive 2011/83/EU (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011).
69.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.
70.
Chapter 4 : Mexico, Sect. 2.
71.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 4.
72.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.3.2.
73.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.3.2.
74.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 4.
75.
Chapter 11: Turkey, Sects. 5.1 and 5.2.
76.
Madrid Court of Appeal, Judgment of 18 Feb 2019. ECLI:ES:APM:2019:1255.
77.
Madrid Court of Appeal, Judgment of 18 Jan 2019. ECLI:ES:APM:2019:3.
78.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 4.1.2.
79.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 7.2.
80.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.3.2.
81.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 4.
82.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 7.2.
83.
This example is given by our Italian contributors (Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.5).
84.
E.g., Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 5.1.2.2; Chapter 11: Turkey, Sect. 5.3; Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.5; Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 7.2.
85.
See Sect. 3 of this chapter.
86.
Chapter 10: South Africa, Sect. 2.3.1.
87.
Chapter 5: Brazil, Sect. 4.
88.
Chapter 4: Mexico, Sect. 2.
89.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 7.2.
90.
Chapter 11: Turkey, Sect. 5.3.
91.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 5.1.2.2.
92.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 5.1.2.2.
93.
Chapter 6: UK, Sect. 5.1.2.3.
94.
Judgment of 20 Dec 2017 in Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL. ECLI:EU:C:2017:981.
95.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.2.
96.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.2.
97.
Chapter 11: Turkey, Sect. 6.2.
98.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.4.
99.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.4.
100.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.4.
101.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sect. 2.5.
102.
Chapter 7: Spain, Sects. 2.4. and 2.5.
103.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
104.
Chapter 3: USA, Sect. 4.1.
105.
Chapter 10: South Africa Sect. 2.4.
106.
Chapter 10: South Africa Sect. 2.4.
107.
Chapter 10: South Africa Sect. 2.4.
108.
Chapter 10: South Africa Sect. 2.4.
109.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 8.2.
110.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 8.2.
111.
Chapter 8: Germany, Sect. 8.2.
112.
Prassl (2018), pp. 125–126.
113.
Chapter 6: UK Sect. 7.
114.
CJEU Case C-212/97, 9 March 1999, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen; CJEU Case C-208/00, 5 November 2002, Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC).
115.
Chapter 6: UK Sect. 4.
116.
Chapter 9: Italy, Sect. 2.4.

References

Eurofound (2018) Non-standard forms of employment: recent trends and future prospects. Eurofound, Dublin (Cited as: Eurofund Report)
Google Scholar
ILO (2016) Recommendation No. 98. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312535. Accessed 20 May 2020
ILO (2018) Digital labour platforms and the future of work: towards decent work in the online. World International Labour Office-Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/—publ/documents/publication/wcms_645337.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2020
Marin J (2019) Passengers’ rights and consumer protection. In: Marin J et al. (eds.) Uber—brave new service or unfair competition. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 76. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–211
Google Scholar
Mudrić M (2019) Nature of Uber services. In: Marin J et al (eds.) Uber—brave new service or unfair competition. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 76. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–56
Google Scholar
Prassl J (2018) Humans as a service. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar

Cases

Aslam v Uber BV (2017) I.R.L.R.4 (ET). https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/uber-bv-ors-v-aslam-ors-judgment-19.12.18.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2020
Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL. ECLI:EU:C:2017:981
Google Scholar
CJEU Case C-208/00, 5 November 2002, Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC)
Google Scholar
CJEU Case C-212/97, 9 March 1999, Centros Ltd v Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen
Google Scholar
Madrid Court of Appeal, Judgment of 18 Jan 2019. ECLI:ES:APM:2019:3
Google Scholar
Madrid Court of Appeal, Judgment of 18 Feb 2019. ECLI:ES:APM:2019:1255
Google Scholar

Legislative Materials

Council Directive 93/113/EEC (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993)
Google Scholar
Directive 2005/29/EC (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005)
Google Scholar
Directive 2011/83/EU (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011)
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Koç University Law School, Istanbul, Turkey
Işık Önay & Zeynep Ayata

Authors

Işık Önay
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Zeynep Ayata
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Işık Önay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Law School, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
Zeynep Ayata
Law School, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey
Işık Önay

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Önay, I., Ayata, Z. (2021). Policy Implications of the Comparative Findings. In: Ayata, Z., Önay, I. (eds) Global Perspectives on Legal Challenges Posed by Ridesharing Companies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7035-3_12

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7035-3_12
Published: 29 September 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-7034-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-7035-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics