Uber’s ‘ not a taxi company’ defense on trial in eu

Uber Technologies Inc. has long tried to fight local transportation laws by saying it isn’t a transportation company. Judges in Luxembourg heard oral arguments Tuesday in a court case that could decide whether that defense will work in Europe.

A ruling isn’t expected until next year, but the stakes in the case are high for Uber on one side, and taxi companies and local regulators in Europe on the other. They have been locked in battles across some of the European Union’s biggest countries.

The outcome could also have broader implications for other tech companies, like Airbnb Inc., that have faced regulatory scuffles in Europe. Several EU countries are also lined up on both sides of the fight, both at the hearing and in briefs filed ahead of the case.

Many regulators and taxi companies argue that Uber is a scofflaw that has raised more than $11 billion in capital to steamroll into countries, ignoring rules aimed at protecting passengers and drivers—while crushing local competition.

Uber argues that national transportation regulations in Europe are outdated. It is arguing at the EU’s Court of Justice that those rule don’t apply to Uber because it is an online-service provider, rather than a transportation provider—a designation that it says should give it protection under existing EU laws.

Uber argued Tuesday that because it is an “information society services provider” that matches drivers with passengers, it should benefit from EU protections for such businesses’ freedom to provide services anywhere in the EU without facing disproportionate licensing requirements.

“This case should show that European laws fully support the development of a digital single market,” said Gareth Mead, a spokesman for the California-based firm.

Elite Taxi, the Barcelona-based association of independent taxi drivers that initiated the case against Uber, disagrees. “Uber is a company that is building a new model for transportation service at no cost, using third parties. It’s unfair competition,” Ivan Sesma, a member of the association’s management board, said in an interview.

The Luxembourg case is the latest round in a pugnacious legal strategy by the California-based firm to punch through regulatory battles, particularly in Europe. The company has faced local or national bans on at least some of its services in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Hungary. Two French executives were fined in criminal court earlier this year for one service that used drivers without professional licenses.

The company also faced a setback in London in October when a tribunal said its drivers were entitled to minimum wage and paid holidays, potentially upending its business model.