This is the presentation of my study project on Market Competition. It goes through the main phases of the litigation between Uber and Italian Taxi Unions. The resolution of the controversy by the Court resulted in banning Uber mobile services.

2. UBER case has been examined in two
different Italian courts:
Turin’s
Courthouse
Rome’s
Courthouse
In both the litigations Taxi Unions accused UBER of
unfair competition for non-compliance with the Italian
framework law 21/92.

3. Taxi  municipal service; differentiated clients;
public area stationing
NCC  undifferentiated clients; garage stationing
Regions decide the criteria to which districts must conform;
Districts establish number and type of vehicles
Drivers must possess the licence
Licences are released by the districts
Taxi’s fees are determined by the authorities
(not the NCC’S ones)
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
(21/92)
ART.
2-3
ART.
4-5
ART.
6
ART.
8
ART.
13

4. ADJUSTABLE
TARIFS
UNDIFFERENTIATED
CLIENTS
NO NEED
OF GARAGE
STATIONING
NO NEED
OF
LICENSE
PREDETERMINE
D TARIFS
DIFFERENTIAT
ED CLIENTS
PUBLIC
STATIONING
NEED OF
LICENSE

5. Against art.102 and 106 TFUE
Art. 102: Any abuse by one
or more undertakings of a
dominant position within the
internal market or in a
substantial part of it shall be
prohibited. […]
Art.106: Undertakings shall
be subject to the rules
contained in the Treaties, in
particular to the rules on
competition
UBER has a competitive advantage

6.  UberPop service comparable to the
one provided by Radio Taxi
 Uber allows to order a ride from a
driver without a commercial licence.
By contrast Italian taxi drivers are
highly regulated with severe limits on
availability of taxi licences.
 Different clients  UberPop users are
members of the “community”
 Interpretation of the art. 2598 c.c. as
freedom of economic initiative
 Uber is essentially a technology
company and differs from a traditional
taxi service (it does not pick
passengers up off the street)
 Social benefits:
- innovative business, expression of
the new concept of car-sharing;
- reduction of transportation costs and
pollution
TURIN LITIGATION IN A NUTSHELL

8. CRUCIAL POINTS
 Feasibility of UBER services to be set on the
transportation industry
 Actual competition between UBER and Taxi service
 Suitability of UBER activity to cause commercial
damage to Taxi drivers

9. Uber business has
the features of a
public taxi service
Italy court bans Uber
over unfair
competition for taxis!
UberPop is illegal
just like any other
taxi company
operating without
a licence
TURIN COURT JUDGEMENT

10. ROME LITIGATION
 Uber was disallowed to offer non-line public transport service through
the use of the Uber Black app
 Similar apps were blocked
 No advertisement of Uber’ services
 Publication of the judgment on Uber's website
 Penalty of € 10,000 for each day of delay in the execution of the block
from the tenth day after the publication of the judgment

11.  Uber's black drivers, unlike taxi
drivers, are not subject to rates set by
the competent administrative
authorities and can thus do "more
competitive prices" depending on the
needs of the market.
 So they are in a position of "undue
advantage" over taxi drivers.
 Not only an intermediary
 Uber is an app and not a
transport company
 With the smartphone technology,
Uber only makes it more efficient
for drivers and passengers to get
in touch in a convenient way for
both
WHO IS RIGHT?

12.  The Uber Group - whose court has
accepted the complaint, rejecting the
appeal of taxi drivers – is allowed to
continue to operate in Italy through
the Uber Black service
 Other services Uber Pop and Uber X
are still prohibited, as established by
the Turin Courthouse
 The Rome court withdrew the
ordinance about the suspension on
the entire national territory of Uber's
services
 It refers to the decision of the
Parliament to suspend until 31
December 2017 some rules of the
national law governing the taxi
industry and hire with driver (NCC)
ROME’S COURT JUDGEMENT

13. THE PROHIBITION OF A SERVICE LIKE UBER COULD BE A
DANGEROUS SIGN OF THE LIMITATION OF INNOVATION.
 Uber has introduced dynamic in a typically static sector
 Because it provides an innovative service that is attractive to users,
Uber should be allowed to compete legally
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Nevertheless…
“EU members should
ensure fairness,
proportionality, and
no discrimination in
the regulation of
new technologies.”
(Zac de Kievit)