Uberpop: Years after banning service, the French government recycles Uber’s arguments (2024)

When the American company Uber entered the French market, it knowingly violated certain laws to further its own development. This situation enraged 90 cab drivers who joined a class action suit filed in November 2017 against the French government, accusing it of having shown "negligent inaction" and "complacency" toward the platform. Having had their claims dismissed by the Paris Administrative Court in 2021, the cabbies have appealed and are now awaiting a second ruling.

According to information from Le Monde, the government's position in this matter is unusual. The defense submitted by the Ministry of Ecological Transition (which oversees transport) on June 30, 2022, which we were able to consult, does not just defend the means deployed by the state to enforce the laws. It exonerates Uber's practices in France, seemingly ignoring the various convictions against the company.

UberPop presented as a simple 'ride-sharing' service

The plaintiff cab drivers blame the government in particular for its handling of the UberPop case. Launched in 2014, this service, which allowed any private individual with a vehicle to become a driver, was immediately opposed by cab drivers: They saw it as unfair and illegal competition since they themselves were bound by a much stricter framework. While the service was eventually stopped by Uber in July 2015, the plaintiffs believe that the government did not do enough to ensure Uber's compliance with the law at the time, allowing it to continue with this illegal activity for almost a year and a half.

But the Ministry of Ecological Transition's defense submissions, which set out the government's arguments, dispute this version of events. Refuting the idea of unfair competition for cabs, it believes that the UberPop service falls under Article L. 3132-1 of the French Transport Code, i.e. ride-sharing and not cab or VTC (passenger car with driver) operations.

Contradicting explicit case law

This argument, which the government had already presented previously, contradicts the explicit case law on the matter. A private driver service such as UberPop cannot be considered as ride-sharing, notably because it is carried out for a fee. While it is possible for the cost of a ride to be shared, the objective of UberPop's drivers was to earn an income from it. Furthermore, the prices charged for equivalent journeys were incomparable to those of ride-sharing platforms.

This matter was determined by the Court of Cassation (France's highest court of appeals) back in 2013. And in February 2014, when UberPop was launched in France, the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control warned consumers about the "illegal" nature of "passenger transport, under the guise of ride-sharing, carried out for profit." The Court of Cassation also upheld in 2017 that UberPop was not a ride-sharing service. Uber and two of its French executives were eventually convicted in 2016 for deceptive commercial practice and complicity in operating an illegal taxi service in the UberPop case (a judgment that was upheld on appeal, pending the decision of the Court of Cassation).

You have 26.07% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.