Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff.
--edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard:
>> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income
So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved?
I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector.
>> i.e. a populist action.
Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?
If they were given only a '4 month extension' in London - and told to 'comply' with certain things - this is a very direct 'shot across the bow'.
Uber creeped into markets 'under the radar' - but when the regulators are directly holding your business hostage - and are saying point-blank: 'do these things or no permit' - it's time to believe them.
Uber is not stupid. They know the difference between 'being under the radar' - and when things are 'for real'. They can ignore city councillors here and there, but this was not that.
Uber is, if anything operationally competent. They'd have had a legal team, strategy sessions etc. on this. It's London - maybe their #2 largest market globally (or at least top 5) - so they're not going to screw around on this.
If Uber was definitely continuing to cheat - and if they were definitely non-compliant, and there were in fact 'a lot of rapes' or whatever with Uber ... then I have no problem with them being banned.
But I believe this is a hugely political move - irrespective of what Uber was and was not.
European regulators from bottom-to-top have been attacking American companies with special regulations.
Apple had to pay a 'magical' $25B tax bill. EU regulators are now trying to create special 'google' and 'Facebook' taxes. They want Uber off their turf.
It's politics and geopolitics as much as anything. And there is a strong whiff of economic protectionism.
It's entirely possible that Uber was just breaking all the rules - but it would also be very naive to not see the geopolitical interplay here.
It's how 100% of international business works. There's no such thing as 'free trade' in reality.
They were given a four month extension, they didn't fix the problems. Now they are down to an appeal process. I have no doubt they will drag it out as long as possible.
Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff.
--edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard:
>> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income
So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved?
I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector.
>> i.e. a populist action.
Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?