On Friday 22 September, many Londoners who regularly use Uber received an email. “As you may have heard,” it began, “the Mayor and Transport for London have announced that they will not be renewing Uber’s licence to operate in our city when it expires on 30 September.” “We are sure Londoners will be as astounded as we are by this decision,” the email continued, with a sense of disbelief. It then pointed readers towards an online petition against this attempt to “ban the app from the capital.” Oddly, the email was sent by a company that TfL have taken no direct action against, and referred to an app that TfL have made no effort (and have no power) to ban. When two become one If that last statement sounds confusing, then this is understandable. It is because the consumer experience that is “Uber” is not actually the same as the companies that deliver it. And “companies” is, ultimately, correct. Although most users of the system don’t realise it, over the course of requesting, completing and paying for their journey an Uber user in London actually interacts with two different companies – one Dutch, one British. The first of those companies is Uber BV (UBV). Based in the Netherlands, this company is responsible for the actual Uber app. When a user wants to be picked up and picks a driver, they are interacting with UBV. It is UBV that request that driver be dispatched to the user’s location. It is also UBV who then collect any payment required. At no point, however, does the user actually get into a car owned, managed or operated by UBV. That duty falls to the second, UK-based company – Uber London Ltd. (ULL). It is ULL who are responsible for all Uber vehicles – and their drivers – in London. Like Addison Lee or any of the other thousands of smaller operators that can be found on high streets throughout the capital, ULL are a minicab firm. They just happen to be one that no passenger has ever called directly – they respond exclusively to requests from UBV. This setup may seem unwieldy, but it is deliberate. In part, it is what has allowed Uber to blur the boundary between being a ‘pre-booked’ service and ‘plying-for-hire’ (a difference we explored when we last looked at the London taxi trade back in 2015). It is also this setup that also allows Uber to pay what their critics say is less than their ‘fair share’ of tax – Uber pays no VAT and, last year, only paid £411,000 in Corporation Tax. The average Londoner can be forgiven for not knowing all of the above (commentators in the media, less so). In the context of the journey, it is the experience that matters, not the technology or corporate structure that delivers it. In the context of understanding the current licensing situation, however, knowing the difference between the companies that make up that that Uber experience is important. Because without that, it is very easy for both Uber’s supporters and opponents to misunderstand what this dispute is actually about. The raw facts Uber London Ltd (ULL) are a minicab operator. This means they require a private hire operator’s licence. Licences last five years and ULL were last issued one in May 2012. They recently applied for its renewal. ULL were granted a four-month extension to that licence earlier this year. This was because TfL, who are responsible for regulating taxi services in London, had a number of concerns that ULL might not meet the required standards of operational practice. These are rules that all private hire operators – from the smallest local cab firm to Addison Lee – are required to meet. Issuing a four-month extension rather than a five-year one was intended to provide the time necessary to investigate those issues further. On Friday 22 September, TfL announced that they believe ULL does not meet the required standard in the following areas: Their approach to reporting serious criminal offences. Their approach to how medical certificates are obtained. Their approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained. Their approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London – software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties. As a result, their application for a new licence has been denied. It is important to note here: Uber users are not about to lose their ability to use the service. ULL have the right to appeal this decision and will remain in operation until that appeal has been heard. Similarly, if changes are made to their operational practices to meet those requirements to TfL’s satisfaction, then a new licence can be issued. Put simply, this isn’t about the app. So why does everyone think it is? Washington DC, September 2012 “I know that you like to cast this as some kind of fight,” said Mary Cheh, Chair of the Committee on Transport and the Environment, “Do you understand that? I’m not in a fight with you.” “When you tell us we can’t charge lower fares, offer a high-quality service at the best possible price, you are fighting with us.” Replied Travis Kalanick, Uber’s increasingly high profile, controversial (and now former) CEO. “You still want to fight!” Cheh sighed, throwing her hands in the air. Back in San Francisco, Salle Yoo, Uber’s chief counsel, was watching in horror via webcast. Pulling out her phone, she began frantically texting the legal team sitting with Kalanick in the room: Pull him from the stand!!! It was too late. Kalanick had already launched into a monologue on toilet roll prices in Soviet Russia. He had turned what had been intended as a (relatively) amicable hearing about setting a base fare for Uber X services in the city into an accusation – and apparent public rejection by Kalanick – of an attempt at consumer price fixing. …