As Uber’s operation in Germany is suspended, pressure mounts for BC solution for ride-sharing services

THE California-based Uber Technologies has received yet another jolt with a court ruling to suspend the ride-sharing service’s operation in Germany. A news report said that a regional court in Frankfurt has banned the company from sending ride-hailing requests to rental car companies via its app. The court found multiple competition violations following a legal challenge by a German taxi association.

Only last month, Uber London Limited was found not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence. Transport for London (TfL) had identified a pattern of failures by the company including several breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk. The TfL said that despite addressing some of these issues, it did not have confidence that similar issues will not reoccur in the future.

And earlier this month, Uber received 235 reports of a rape occurring during a ride in the United States last year — an average of four a week., according to a company review. These sexual assaults have led to a flood of lawsuits from riders who were reportedly sexually assaulted by Uber drivers.

And in Colombia, according to a news report, a judge has ordered Uber to suspend its ride-hailing business after a technology platform presented a lawsuit claiming the company was providing the service through unfair competition. Uber has appealed the decision.

With one setback after another for Uber, there is increasing doubt about Uber fitting into the BC market. There is an increasing demand to have BC solutions for ride-sharing with proper controls and fairness.

There is also the question of profits and taxes remaining in B.C. The Province needs to take a good, hard look at companies like Uber.

BC Liberals do not care what happens to British Columbians as long as their pockets are filled by lavish corporate donations. The money laundering scandals in casinos proves that point.


  1. BC’s Passenger Transportation Board shd consider that Uber and Lyft are being sued in multiple U.S. states because of their refusals to accommodate persons with disabilities: (contains link to 5 minute audio report); (text, and contains link to 3 minutes video report)

    “New York City has settled a suit with Uber, Lyft and Via over requirements that it provide more service to people in wheelchairs….

    “… by mid-2021, the companies must service at least 80 percent of requests for wheelchair-accessible vehicles in under 10 minutes and 90 percent in under 15 minutes ”

    “Uber, Lyft and Via may be rivals on the streets of New York City, but they are united in their opposition to New York City’s plan to impose upon them wheelchair-accessibility requirements….”

    For over 20 years, BC’s Passenger Transportation Board has imposed extensive obligations on BC’s taxi companies to accommodate persons with disabilities:

    “Accessible Taxi Policy:
    Operating Policy | Accessible Taxis | May 2016:

    Reference Sheet 7 | Preparing an Accessible Service Plan:

    Motor Vehicle Act Regulations: Division 44 “Accessible Taxis”:

    Wheelchair Accessible Transportation: Update for Industries 2017: (1 page)

    Wheelchair Accessible Transportation: Update for Municipalities 2017: (2-pages)

    But, the PTB’s license policy for ride-hailing companies does NOT require ride-hailing companies that wish to provide services in Metro Vancouver to have wheelchair accessible vehicles…

    The unconscionably lax ride-hailing (TNC) license regulations that have been established by the PTB conflict with BC Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights and Freedoms Equality provisions…

    The license terms that the PTB has established for TNC (ride-hailing) companies (such as Uber and Lyft) to operate in BC:

    ->>> allow ride-hailing companies to provide defacto “public services”, while at the same time (unlawfully!) exempting ride-hailing companies from complying with the Equality provisions of BC’s Human Rights Code and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

    “Human Rights in Services, Facilities, Accommodations

    “Everyone has the right to be free from discrimination based on protected characteristics when seeking access to or when using a public service… ”


    Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility

    (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

    (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

    (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or age of that person or class of persons…”

    Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section #15:

    BC Taxpayers’ are financially liable for (potentially) $$Billions in court-ordered damages payments to BC taxi companies that sue BC’s Passenger Transportation Board (and indirectly the BC govt) for its wrongfully allowing massively subsidized, massively indebted, discriminatory-to-persons-with-disabilities ride-hailing companies (such as Uber and Lyft) to operate in BC in a virtually unregulated fashion while competing against not subsidized, extensively regulated taxi companies ..

    Other jurisdictions’ experiences:

    “Toronto taxi owners sue city for $1.7 billion over arrival of Uber, lost plate value”:

    “Montreal Cab drivers sue the Quebec government for $1 Billion”:


    Uber and Lyft are both $$ Billions in debt; have always have been, are today, and plan to continue to be unfairly and entirely unjustifiably subsidized (by $$Billions of dollars of loans coming from outside of BC and Canada) while they compete with BC taxi companies that are not similarly subsidized and never could be:

    “Uber is far from making money.

    “… It reported an operating loss of $3 billion in 2018 after losing more than $4 billion the previous year…”

Comments are closed.