Ride-sharing

UBER FILES : POURQUOI UN SCANDALE ?

November 28, 2022
By Bill Wirtz
In Recent Media, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy
0 comments

Les révélations sur l’entreprise de VTC sont-elles vraiment si graves ? Pour Bill Wirtz, elles rappellent surtout des problèmes dans le modèle des taxis qu’Uber et les autres applications de VTC essayent de remplacer.

Cet été, un consortium de journaux internationaux a publié les « Uber Files », une collection de documents ayant fait l’objet de fuites qui prétendent montrer les activités illégales et le lobbying douteux auxquels s’est livrée l’entreprise.

Il y a quelques semaines, le Parlement européen a organisé une audition parlementaire spéciale avec le lanceur d’alerte qui est devenu célèbre pour avoir rendu ces documents publics. Mais les « Uber Files » sont-ils vraiment le révélateur d’un scandale, et qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour l’entreprise ?

Uber contre les taxis

Voici déjà le résumé de l’ampleur de la fuite, décrite par le Guardian britannique en juillet dernier :

« La fuite sans précédent de plus de 124 000 documents – connus sous le nom de « Uber Files » – met à nu les pratiques éthiquement douteuses qui ont alimenté la transformation de l’entreprise en l’une des exportations les plus célèbres de la Silicon Valley. […]

La masse de fichiers, qui s’étend de 2013 à 2017, comprend plus de 83 000 courriels, iMessages et messages WhatsApp, y compris des communications souvent franches et sans fard entre Kalanick [le cofondateur d’Uber] et son équipe de cadres supérieurs. »

Il y a beaucoup de documents à lire dans cette fuite, de sorte que chaque lecteur peut se faire une opinion sur la question. Ce qui est clair pour moi, c’est que toutes les accusations ne sont que vaguement liées, et s’effondrent lorsqu’on les analyse de plus près.

L’article du Guardian suggère que la société se livre à des activités illégales, en s’appuyant souvent sur des procès intentés aux Etats-Unis par des passagers qui auraient été blessés par des chauffeurs Uber. Je ne peux pas parler de ces cas individuels, mais je trouve étrange de déclarer une entreprise criminelle sur la base du comportement de chauffeurs qui utilisent simplement la plateforme pour trouver du travail.

En comparaison, les chauffeurs de taxi ont un lien beaucoup plus linéaire avec la compagnie de taxi pour laquelle ils travaillent, et pourtant nous ne qualifions pas les compagnies de taxi de criminelles lorsque leurs chauffeurs commettent des actes illégaux.

Un autre aspect de la criminalité supposée d’Uber est la révélation qu’Uber avait « exploité » les manifestations de taxis dans le passé, au cours desquelles des chauffeurs de taxi avaient violemment agressé des chauffeurs Uber. Un cadre d’Uber aurait déclaré que ces actions des chauffeurs de taxi feraient le jeu d’Uber d’un point de vue réglementaire.

Même si je suis sûr que certaines des blagues et déclarations des messages privés étaient de mauvais goût, on ne peut s’empêcher de remarquer que les journaux qui critiquent Uber pour cela, ont très peu à dire sur les chauffeurs de taxi qui ont agressé des passagers et des chauffeurs Uber. L’article du Guardian montre même une photo de chauffeurs de taxi mettant le feu à des pneus à Paris. Comment quelqu’un peut conclure qu’Uber est l’acteur criminel dans cette affaire me dépasse.

Une question de relations

Ensuite, il y a la question du lobbying – avec cette désormais célèbre citation tirée des fuites : lorsqu’en 2015, un fonctionnaire de police français a semblé interdire l’un des services d’Uber à Marseille, Mark MacGann, alors lobbyiste en chef d’Uber en Europe, au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique (et aujourd’hui lanceur d’alerte derrière les révélations), s’est tourné vers l’allié d’Uber au sein du conseil des ministres français. « Je vais examiner cette question personnellement », a répondu Emmanuel Macron, alors ministre de l’Economie, par texto. « À ce stade, restons calmes. »

Il apparaît que les lobbyistes d’Uber avaient de très bonnes relations avec des personnes occupant des postes politiques élevés. Des relations qui ont permis à l’entreprise d’avoir des régimes réglementaires favorables dans certains pays européens. On peut arguer qu’étant donné les réglementations très strictes auxquelles l’entreprise a été confrontée, ses tentatives de lobbying n’ont pas été particulièrement fructueuses, mais en lobbying comme en marketing, les effets sont difficiles à mesurer.

Ce qui me frappe, c’est de savoir dans quelle mesure le lobbying d’Uber est offensant pour les gens. Toute personne ayant fréquenté les halls des parlements des Etats membres de l’UE, ou du Parlement européen, sait que des poignées de main sont échangées pratiquement chaque minute entre l’industrie et les représentants élus. Certaines de ces réunions sont enregistrées, mais d’autres se déroulent de manière informelle lors de fêtes ou d’autres rassemblements, ce qui est normal pour les centres de pouvoirs réglementaires.

En ce sens, Uber n’agit pas de manière particulièrement différente des autres industries, y compris les entreprises de taxi existantes, qui bénéficient depuis des décennies de protections spéciales en matière de licences de la part de nombreux gouvernements. Dans beaucoup de pays européens, dont la France, Uber a démocratisé le transport en taxi et l’a ouvert aux personnes à faibles revenus ou aux étudiants, qui n’avaient auparavant pas les moyens de payer une course.

Le système de prise en charge d’Uber a également rendu beaucoup plus difficile pour les chauffeurs la discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique – un facteur qui jouait souvent un rôle lorsqu’on appelle un taxi.

Les « Uber Files » sont-ils un scandale ? A mon avis, pas vraiment. Il y a des accusations de corruption, et celles-ci doivent faire l’objet d’une enquête. Cependant, la tentative de regrouper un grand nombre de SMS en une grande conspiration relève d’un journalisme paresseux. Cela ne tient pas la route face aux pratiques existantes dans les affaires publiques, et ne justifie pas une commission parlementaire.

Puisque le Parlement européen tient à enquêter, où est l’enquête sur la façon dont il a été possible de laisser pendant des décennies le monopole du transport par taxi à certaines personnes et sociétés ?

Originally published here

Colombia’s Uber ban is protectionist and ignores consumers

While Europe is arguing over the employment status of drivers and delivery workers employed in the platform economy sector, Colombia faces an entirely different type of problem.

After having operated in the country for six years in a legal gray area, Uber was forced out of the Colombian market against the backdrop of repeated resistance from the taxi companies and drivers. As of 2020, Uber had 2.3 million users around the country.

Because of Uber’s popularity, Colombian taxi drivers, who have to pay extremely high fees for acquiring operating licenses, felt they were put at a disadvantage. They filed a lawsuit targeting Uber. According to an attorney leading the case, other ride-hailing apps present on the market, such as Didi, Beat, Cabify were to be sued next. Scapegoating Uber for its success doesn’t help anyone–but, above all, it hurts consumers.

The court decided that Uber had indeed violated competition rules and was ordered to cease its operations across the country.

Sharing economy platforms are innovative and adaptable – their entrepreneurial spirit is outstanding. Uber found a loophole in the court’s ruling that quickly helped them get back in the market. Renting cars is entirely legal, and Uber came up with a new business model that allowed users to rent a vehicle with a driver. The court decision was soon overturned, but Uber remains illegal. Its drivers ask passengers to take the front seat to avoid unwanted attention from the police, which could result in fines and/or having their vehicles confiscated.

The availability of ride-hailing apps such as Uber on the Colombian market provides an alternative to traditional taxis. However, both are equally important. Both services have their target audience. Governments should not intervene by banning or creating unfavourable conditions, so drivers fear getting stopped by police and receiving significant fines. Consumers should choose to use their smartphones to arrange a ride or hail a taxi in the street.

Uber solves many problems in the Colombian market which are concerning to consumers. First, it’s safety. In Colombia, taxis have a reputation of generally being unsafe. In 2018, for example, “15% of robberies were perpetrated when the victim was using a transportation service“. Uber and its main competitor in Colombia, Didi, offering additional security features, provide an innovative solution to this problem.

A dedicated safety support team allows you to get help or report an incident and provides a great overall customer support system. During the ride, the app enables you to share your ride details with trusted people, which adds more to the feeling of security.

Second, Uber is transparent. When you use Uber, you are aware of the approximate charge before even ordering the ride, and if you have any doubts, the history of each ride is recorded and easily accessible. On the other hand, you don’t have the same transparency when using taxi services. Drivers could take a longer route, pretend not to have any change or round up the fee and ask for more than the meter is showing for the sole reason that “it’s Sunday” like it happened to me on one occasion in Colombia.

The availability of Uber and other sharing economy services is an important part of Colombia’s attractiveness as a digital nomad hub. Location-independent remote workers who use technology to perform their job rely on sharing economy platforms for their accommodation and transportation needs. As an internationally trusted company, Uber is the preferred mode of transportation because of the aforementioned reasons. Dealing with taxis could be much more complicated for people who don’t speak the local language, but with Uber, you drive with certainty and security. Even if Uber can be more expensive during the rush hours, paying a little extra is worth it for other digital nomads based in Colombia and me.

Consumers’ lives have changed with the emergence of ride-hailing. Banning a preferred service by millions of consumers in the country sets a wrong precedent and puts the future of already established or currently emerging innovative services in jeopardy. Colombia should embrace innovation, encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and facilitate entry barriers for more sharing economy services.

Toronto takes on MADD: Good luck with that!

November 30, 2021
By David Clement
In Recent Media, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy
1 comment

The freeze on new ridesharing licences couldn’t come at a worse time

Last week Toronto city council suspended the issuance of all new ridesharing licences until the city approves and rolls out a driver safety program. This suspension, which will significantly limit supply, does nothing for consumer safety but does run the risk of jeopardizing public safety.

The motion, pushed by councillors who have opposed ridesharing access at almost every turn, addresses a problem that is the council’s own creation. Almost 18 months ago, the city decided it would move forward with a rideshare-driver training program, but then sat on its hands and never approved a vendor. (In Toronto, transactions that don’t require government sign-off are getting rarer and rarer.) And now, Catch-22, Council has decided to suspend new permits because drivers haven’t taken the safety course. Whose fault is it that the city approved a training program without any plan for implementing it? Not drivers’ fault and certainly not consumers’ fault.

The freeze on new ridesharing licences couldn’t come at a worse time — just as the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) announces it is reducing service routes due to staff shortages, mostly because it can’t persuade its employees to get vaccinated. Now, with driver shortages looming in the ride-share industry, consumers can expect to face higher prices and longer than usual wait times.

Restricted ridesharing combined with disrupted public transit is a recipe for increases in drunk driving and motor vehicle collisions, as the academic literature on ridesharing’s effect on impaired driving shows. In Houston, for example, researchers at the University of Texas concluded that “rideshare volume had a significant negative correlation with the incidence of motor vehicle-associated trauma, and this was most evident in those younger than 30 years.” Analyzing 24 million Uber rides, they found that access to ridesharing reduced motor vehicle collisions by 23.8 per cent — a remarkable reduction that should be celebrated from a public safety perspective.

Economist Jessica Lynn Peck found that in New York City the introduction of ridesharing services reduced motor vehicle collisions involving impairment by 25-35 per cent, with the highest reduction taking place in densely packed Manhattan. This well-established negative correlation presumably is why Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada (MADD) issued a statement in opposition to the City’s motion: “MADD Canada fully supports the implementation of the mandatory training program, but believes the decision to halt rideshare drivers’ licences until that program is in place will have a negative impact on Torontonians.”

Other research finds that ridesharing “leads to a significant decline in arrests for both physical and sexual assault.” This is likely why 81 per cent of femaleriders say that safety is their primary motivation in using ridesharing, which allows digital tracking of the driver and sharing one’s route with a family member or friend in real time. Restricting access to ridesharing will tend to push women to less safe alternatives.

As Ontario continues to open up from the pandemic, Toronto’s city council is putting public safety at risk and doing so, ironically under the banner of consumer safety. More and more Ontarians are going out to restaurants, bars, clubs, and that will only intensify as the holidays approach. From a consumer and public safety perspective, increasing the options available to consumers for travel is the right policy direction. Unfortunately, city councillors don’t see it that way, and Torontonians will be worse off because of it — some of them worse off in the worst possible way.

Originally published here

A Europe without the sharing economy: scary tale or real future?

October 5, 2021
By Maria Chaplia
In Recent Media, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy
0 comments

The latest legal challenges to Uber are yet another example of policymakers giving sharing economy platforms an unnecessarily hard time despite the flexibility and independence they offer both workers and consumers.

Uber’s fight for existence in Brussels is a win-or-lose moment for the sharing economy in the European Union. The clash comes at a time when steadfast legislative and court actions across the bloc aim to reclassify platform workers as employees and upend opportunities for contractors. Unless the worrying trend is reversed, European consumers will find themselves cut off from innovation and choice.

The current Brussels Uber ban is based on an archaic 1995 law that prohibits drivers from using smartphones. While it should be a great shame for all of Belgium that such a law has remained untouched till today, it is also hardly surprising. Brussels’ taxi lobby has long been unhappy with the emergence of ridesharing, and these restrictions play to their benefit.

Uber began operating in Brussels in 2014 and had to continuously resist the system and fight back through costly court appeals and restrictions to survive. In 2015, the Belgian commercial court banned UberPOP — a traditional peer-to-peer service — by ruling in favour of Taxis Verts, a cab firm, just to name one example. Since then, Uber drivers have had to get a special licence to operate, which made the service more expensive and less accessible.

However, consumers in Brussels still enjoy the services of Uber. Over 1200 residents of the EU capital signed a petition against the smartphone ban, arguing that “there is no valid and digital alternative to the platform in Brussels at the moment”. On the supply side, there are currently about 2000 drivers using the Uber app. The fact that the Brussels government is selectively enforcing an old law only now, after multiple attempts to get rid of Uber, shows that the company crossed the Rubicon of success, and it has become too inconvenient and competitive to the taxi lobby.

Recently, in Brussels, there have also been calls to reclassify self-employed drivers as employees. This witch hunt after the gig economy mirrors the recent Dutch court ruling about employment benefits for ridesharing drivers and Spanish “riders” law, which concerns the status of delivery workers. Under the pretence of providing security and stability, these interventions threaten the very nature of the sharing economy and are oblivious to the drivers’ needs and flexibility.

Sharing economy platforms give their contractors flexibility and independence, and that is exactly what those choosing to ride share or deliver food are seeking. By surveying 1,001 active Uber drivers in London, a 2018 study by the University of Oxford and Lund University found that they joined the platform because of autonomy, scheduling flexibility, or improved work-life balance that the sharing economy provides. Moreover, the flexibility was so valuable to them that they would only accept fixed schedules on the condition of significant earnings increases.

Being an independent contractor is linked with “greater enjoyment of daily activities, a decrease in psychological strain, and a greater ability to face problems”, according to a study at the Paris School of Economics. In pursuit of “better” labour standards, it is easy to forget that value is subjective, and that one size doesn’t fit all. Drivers who make a living through platforms make a conscious choice in favour of flexibility and autonomy, and their freedom to do so must be preserved.

By providing value to thousands of consumers and giving platform contractors a chance to plan their time better through alternative work arrangements, the sharing economy makes our lives easier, better, and more exciting. But some European policymakers are giving the sharing economy in the EU — and especially ridesharing — a hard time, which it doesn’t deserve. It’s time for that to stop.

Originally published here

Sharing economy under threat – Sharing Economy Series, part 3

September 29, 2021
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy, Sharing Economy Index
0 comments

Welcome to the CCC’s sharing economy series. In this series of short blog posts, I elaborate on what the sharing economy is, present the main findings of the Sharing Economy Index, and look at potential future regulations surrounding these services.

The pandemic isn’t the only obstacle sharing economy platforms have had to face for the past several months. Governments around the world have introduced new regulations that have been detrimental to consumer choice. Compared to the time when the platform economy was only starting its way into our daily lives, ride-hailing apps today are subject to many more restrictions. Some of these new interventions include employee classifications, social security, parking requirements, or outright bans.

One of the main aspects of ride-sharing that governments are trying to redefine and regulate is the relationship between service providers and drivers. Uber and other platforms treat drivers as contractors, rather than employees, but to some such an approach is unfair.

Drivers’ inability to set fares, penalties for cancelling rides, and customer engagement restrictions are among the main reasons why drivers can be seen as less independent than believed. However, on the other hand, contractor status gives drivers more flexibility and the chance to choose their own working hours. They can work for different ride-hailing apps at the same time, which would become impossible should full employee status be given to drivers.

Uber has been involved in many legal battles to protect drivers’ independence. Recently, the supreme court of the UK ruled that Uber drivers should be granted employee status and benefits that the status entails, like paying minimum wage and paid annual leave. This will likely increase the ride fare around the country.

This is not the first attempt at restricting Uber though. After protests of London black cab drivers, the transport regulation body TfL was pressured to introduce new restrictions on Uber. Some of these restrictions included a 5-minute wait between rides, which would have affected the delivery of service and, as Uber claimed, taken money out of drivers’ pockets. A petition against this restriction was signed by over 130,000 people and, fortunately, TfL decided to drop it.

Brussels took a different yet equally restrictive path. The Belgian capital recently has even gone as far as banning app-based taxi systems, the essence of ride-hailing itself. This comes after pressure from the traditional taxi drivers, who were urging the government to regulate app-based ride-hailing that was becoming harder and harder for them to compete with.

Drivers who continue to accept trips via their smartphone face a risk of getting fined or having their license revoked. While Uber hasn’t been explicitly banned, countries like Denmark and Hungary have made it impossible for Uber to operate there and have practically forced the company out of the market.

Across the ocean, the state of California has also been debating over the drivers’ status. Passed in 2020, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) was meant to reclassify independent contractors as employees. According to the bill, ride-hailing and delivery services platforms would be required to offer multiple benefits to their drivers. This would have cost Uber and Lyft billions of dollars and increased the cost of ride-sharing services, making it increasingly unaffordable compared to traditional taxis.

Ride-hailing and delivery services platforms wanted to be exempt from granting worker-level benefits to their workers and threatened to suspend their services in the state of California. For example, it costs almost 2x more to catch a traditional taxi from LAX to Hollywood and with no more ride-hailing available, consumers would be left with fewer and more expensive options.

Proposition 22 was included in the November 2020 election ballot and passed with around 57% of California voters. This proposition allowed drivers on these apps to maintain their independent status with certain qualified benefits. But the California court recently ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional, so it seems like the legal battle is far from being over. It is very likely that other states will follow the example of California which will put the fate of the ride-hailing in jeopardy.

Overall, even though ride-hailing services have made life easier and cheaper for consumers around the world, governments keep yielding to pressures mainly from traditional taxi industries and introducing regulations and restrictions that could potentially lead to the suspension of ride-hailing services.

The cases of the UK, Brussels and California discussed in this blogpost demonstrate a dangerous precedent for countries and cities around the world. If this trend continues, soon ride-hailing will no longer be any different from traditional services and the essence of the sharing economy will be lost. And, of course, consumers are the ones who will have to bear the burden of restricted choice.

Sharing economy in COVID-times – Sharing economy series, part 2

September 20, 2021
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Home-sharing, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy
0 comments

The current pandemic has had a huge impact on the delivery of sharing economy services. As was discussed in the previous blogpost, online platforms have demonstrated exceptional adaptability and have gone above and beyond to make sure consumers continue to see value in using them.

While some sectors of the sharing economy, like ride-sharing and home-sharing, have suffered immense losses due to strict lockdowns around the world, others have increased their profits and proved to be invaluable. For example, delivery apps became an essential part of our everyday lives. With restaurants being closed, the fear of virus transmission, and difficulty of travelling due to transport restrictions, we found ourselves relying on delivery services.

To avoid human interaction at the delivery point, Doordash, an online food delivery platform, like many others, introduced a contactless delivery option that can be requested both by the customer and the deliverer. According to Statista, in the second quarter in France, restaurant delivery users increased by 24% compared to pre-pandemic numbers. In the US, delivery companies also reported growth in their revenues. Combined revenues from the four major delivery companies, Uber Eats, Doordash, Postmates, and Grubhub, from April-September 2020 was double the amount during April-September 2019.

Professional car-sharing services experienced a huge drop in demand during lockdowns, but once people started to get back on the move rather than opt for public transportation they placed more trust in car-sharing services as it entails low risks of virus transmission. Share Now increased their hygiene measures, and they have been cleaning and disinfecting their cars four times more than usual. Peer-to-peer car-sharing platforms, like Turo and Getaround, have also bounced back from pandemic-related setbacks. To reassure people into using their services again they eased cancellation policies and introduced additional cleaning measures.

As demand for services dropped drastically, many companies had to cut losses. Uber, for example, had to lay off thousands of employees to reduce operating expenses, most of those employees being customer service agents, and had to close 45 offices globally. Lyft, another ride-sharing company and Uber’s biggest rival, had to let go of 17% of its workforce.

To comply with new covid restrictions introduced by the local governments, Uber and Airbnb changed and adapted their processes. Uber made it obligatory to wear masks while riding, and before ordering a ride, you have to confirm you will be wearing a mask during the ride. Airbnb introduced additional safety measures and made it a requirement for hosts to carry out a 5 step cleaning process between the guest stays.

Overall, despite the doom and gloom of the pandemic, the sharing economy managed to survive and continue to innovate. These unprecedented times were more challenging for some than for others. While some services, like ride-sharing and home-sharing, had to lay off a significant amount of their workforce, delivery platforms saw record-breaking demand for their services.

The next blogpost in our series will discuss some of the controversies surrounding sharing economy platforms and how governments are trying to regulate this innovative sector.

The essence of the sharing economy – Sharing economy series, part 1

September 13, 2021
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Home-sharing, Ride-sharing, Sharing Economy, Sharing Economy Index
2 comments

The current pandemic has taken a toll on most areas of economic activity, including the sharing economy. Cancelled holidays, stay-at-home orders, mobility restrictions due to quarantines, and lockdowns resulted in a sharp drop in demand for sharing economy services.

The Sharing Economy Index 2021, recently published by the Consumer Choice Center, examines the impact said restrictions have had on the sharing economy as well as provides an extensive overview of the availability of ride-sharing, flat sharing, and other types of peer-to-peer exchange.

In this series of short blog posts, I will elaborate on what the sharing economy is, present the main findings of the Sharing Economy Index, and look at potential future regulations surrounding these services.

The sharing (collaborative) economy has transformed human interactions around the globe. As a relatively new economic model, the sharing economy is a platform based type of exchange that allows individuals and groups to share their services on a peer-to-peer basis.

One of the most distinctive features of the sharing economy is that it eliminates the need to own assets and allows people to use various items — cars, e-scooters, gyms — for a short time without buying them. For example, the flat-sharing platform Airbnb that has been around since 2008, allows you to rent a room or a whole place to yourself in exchange for a certain fee. Simple registration on their website or mobile app opens access to thousands of places around the world and is a great alternative to conventional hotels.

Another tech giant and San-Francisco native, Uber, offers services such as ride-hailing, food and package delivery and also requires just a simple registration process. Uber has been known to be a cheaper alternative to traditional taxi services and is currently available in 70 countries.

Technology has been the driving force behind these companies. However, platforms only act as intermediaries and facilitators: they instantly connect the supply with demand. All forms of collaborative consumption require the internet to connect providers with potential customers. Platforms offer a safe and easy-to-use platform to link people in need of certain services, assets to those who can provide them.

The trust among users is built through the rating systems. Most platforms encourage review exchange to achieve the best user experience and guarantee safety. For example, for Airbnb, some hosts go the extra mile to make sure their guests enjoy their stay by offering free cleaning services or early check-in. Uber recently released Uber Lite to accommodate those people in developing countries who don’t own the latest smartphones and have an unstable internet connection. Mexico is one of those countries. To adjust to the needs of Mexican people even better, Uber also fought hard to enable cash payments in Mexico city, expanding their service to around 10 million people in the metropolitan area.

Sharing economy provides services that are more affordable and accessible than their traditional counterparts. The main reason for this is the fewer entry barriers. In order to start driving Uber or rent out your flat through Airbnb, you use idle assets already in your possession. In many countries, platform businesses face fewer market entry barriers compared to traditional businesses, too. Often, it only takes a quick sign-up to join a sharing economy platform.

A variety of services — from home-sharing to co-working spaces — has made our lives much easier. Even though the recent pandemic has been quite challenging, we’re optimistic that the sharing economy will continue to expand and provide even bigger benefits for people around the world. In the next blog post, we’ll go into details on what effects COVID-19 has had on the sharing economy platforms and how they responded.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement	1 year	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
JSESSIONID	past	Used by sites written in JSP. General purpose platform session cookies that are used to maintain users' state across page requests.
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__sharethis_cookie_test__	session	This cookie is set by ShareThis, to test whether the browser accepts cookies.
bcookie	2 years	This cookie is set by linkedIn. The purpose of the cookie is to enable LinkedIn functionalities on the page.
lang	session	This cookie is used to store the language preferences of a user to serve up content in that stored language the next time user visit the website.
lidc	1 day	This cookie is set by LinkedIn and used for routing.
pll_language	1 year	This cookie is set by Polylang plugin for WordPress powered websites. The cookie stores the language code of the last browsed page.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__gads	1 year 24 days	This cookie is set by Google and stored under the name dounleclick.com. This cookie is used to track how many times users see a particular advert which helps in measuring the success of the campaign and calculate the revenue generated by the campaign. These cookies can only be read from the domain that it is set on so it will not track any data while browsing through another sites.
_ga	2 years	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_111177680_1	1 minute	This cookie is set by Google and is used to distinguish users.
_gid	1 day	This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the website is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages visted in an anonymous form.
CONSENT	16 years 4 months 8 days 16 hours	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. They register anonymous statistical data on for example how many times the video is displayed and what settings are used for playback.No sensitive data is collected unless you log in to your google account, in that case your choices are linked with your account, for example if you click “like” on a video.

Cookie	Duration	Description
_fbp	3 months	This cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
bscookie	2 years	This cookie is a browser ID cookie set by Linked share Buttons and ad tags.
fr	3 months	The cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE	1 year 24 days	Used by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
personalization_id	2 years	This cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
test_cookie	15 minutes	This cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE	5 months 27 days	This cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.
YSC	session	This cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.
yt-remote-connected-devices	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt-remote-device-id	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt.innertube::nextId	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.
yt.innertube::requests	never	These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos.

Cookie	Duration	Description
__gpi	1 year 24 days	No description
_mailmunch_visitor_id	never	This cookie is set by MailMunch which is email collection and email marketing platform. We do not know the exact purpose of the cookie.
AnalyticsSyncHistory	1 month	No description
asp_transient_id	7 days	No description available.
GoogleAdServingTest	session	No description
li_gc	2 years	No description
mailmunch_second_pageview	never	This cookie is set by MailMunch which is email collection and email marketing platform. We do not know the exact purpose of the cookie.
raygun4js-userid	never	Description unavailable.
st_samesite	session	No description
UserMatchHistory	1 month	Linkedin - Used to track visitors on multiple websites, in order to present relevant advertisement based on the visitor's preferences.

Follow us

Contact Info

Uber contre les taxis

Une question de relations

The freeze on new ridesharing licences couldn’t come at a worse time

The latest legal challenges to Uber are yet another example of policymakers giving sharing economy platforms an unnecessarily hard time despite the flexibility and independence they offer both workers and consumers.

Consumer Choice Radio

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Recent Posts

Follow us

Contact Info