Uber’s entire line of services was halted in Italy last Friday, after a court blocked the company’s right to use apps for ride-hailing.
Unlike other limitations imposed on Uber in various places across the world, this includes Black, Lux, SUV, X, XL, Select, and Van, all from the same company. Furthermore, Uber is banned from promoting or advertising its services in the country, and all of its phone applications cannot be used by the firm or its contractors.
According to the court, the American start-up turned giant was acting as an unfair competitor to the country’s major traditional taxi associations. The latter were the plaintiffs in this case, and you can understand that they felt that their livelihood was at stake.
The same can be said about many taxi drivers across the world, but they have not joined up to file lawsuits as big as this one, Business Insider reports.
The American business has pledged to appeal the decision, in the hope that some of its services, if not all, will be allowed once again to operate in Italy. According to reports, officials of the firm has stated that they were “shocked” by the decision.
Several cities and countries have banned, suspended, or restricted some of Uber’s services, but Italy is the first to forbid everything related to it.
The Netherlands, Western Australia, the city of Brussels, and Germany have applied restrictions to Uber’s services. South Korea, Spain, and a few cities in the USA have suspended the operations of the company.
Thailand has a full suspension in effect on Uber services. A ban was implemented in several cities in India, the state of Nevada, Fukuoka (Japan), and the town of Eugene, in Oregon. While it is forbidden in Cape Town, Taiwan, and Queensland, among others, Uber is still operating in some places.
The main idea is that traditional taxi companies are struggling to halt Uber to protect their businesses, while various states have legislation in effect that is not entirely prepared to handled this firm’s business model.
Meanwhile, it applies promotions and low prices in some places, only to use surge rates when the service gets enough users on board, while its drivers do not have to pay the same fees as taxi drivers to operate, which brings the situation back to the “unfair competition” part.
According to the court, the American start-up turned giant was acting as an unfair competitor to the country’s major traditional taxi associations. The latter were the plaintiffs in this case, and you can understand that they felt that their livelihood was at stake.
The same can be said about many taxi drivers across the world, but they have not joined up to file lawsuits as big as this one, Business Insider reports.
The American business has pledged to appeal the decision, in the hope that some of its services, if not all, will be allowed once again to operate in Italy. According to reports, officials of the firm has stated that they were “shocked” by the decision.
Several cities and countries have banned, suspended, or restricted some of Uber’s services, but Italy is the first to forbid everything related to it.
The Netherlands, Western Australia, the city of Brussels, and Germany have applied restrictions to Uber’s services. South Korea, Spain, and a few cities in the USA have suspended the operations of the company.
Thailand has a full suspension in effect on Uber services. A ban was implemented in several cities in India, the state of Nevada, Fukuoka (Japan), and the town of Eugene, in Oregon. While it is forbidden in Cape Town, Taiwan, and Queensland, among others, Uber is still operating in some places.
The main idea is that traditional taxi companies are struggling to halt Uber to protect their businesses, while various states have legislation in effect that is not entirely prepared to handled this firm’s business model.
Meanwhile, it applies promotions and low prices in some places, only to use surge rates when the service gets enough users on board, while its drivers do not have to pay the same fees as taxi drivers to operate, which brings the situation back to the “unfair competition” part.