fbpx

Sharing Economy

BANNING AIRBNB IN ONE BUDAPEST DISTRICT SETS A DANGEROUS NATIONAL PRECEDENT FOR HUNGARY

While those favoring the ban argue that it will reduce housing shortages and rent inflation, this approach overlooks the more significant systemic problems driving the housing crisis. The rising cost of living and limited housing projects are far more influential than short-term rentals in shaping the housing market. Even without Airbnb, housing affordability would remain a critical issue due to the scarcity of new housing and broader economic pressures.

Furthermore, the local ban raises concerns about a possible national-level restriction on short-term rentals, as a leading Fidesz politician hinted during the weekend. If this decision sets a precedent, a blanket ban on platforms like Airbnb could have unintended consequences. It may hinder tourism, which many local businesses and workers depend on, and it could affect the livelihood of those who supplement their income by renting out properties. Bans may also shift the housing market without solving the key issue: the supply of affordable homes.

International examples, such as in Barcelona, Paris, and New York City, demonstrate that Airbnb bans or severe restrictions have not resolved housing crises. In Barcelona, while strict regulations have reduced the number of available short-term rentals, they have also increased illegal listings, making enforcement challenging. Paris has seen a similar rise in non-compliant rentals, while in New York City, stringent rules have displaced Airbnb to the black market, complicating oversight and leaving both hosts and guests in legal grey areas. Moreover, consumers are now facing surging hotel room prices, as the supply of accommodation in cities banning short-term rents is still low, but the demand side is still relatively high. As for rent prices, they have still increased by 3.4%, even with rent control and the ban on short-term rentals

Rather than treating Airbnb as a scapegoat, policymakers need to focus on meaningful reforms such as increasing the construction of extra housing, which makes for actual affordability, and providing rent subsidies. Addressing these core problems would have a far more lasting impact than banning short-term rentals, which serves as little more than a temporary patch on a much larger problem.

Considering these concerns, the decision in Terézváros appears more symbolic than substantive. It fails to engage the broader population in addressing the real challenges of the housing crisis while opening the door to overregulation at a national level that could harm the wider economy and Hungarian consumers. 

Originally published here

North Carolinians deserve clarity on the legal status of poolsharing

Copying homework is as endemic to tech innovation as it is to regulatory policy. A new video application will take off in Silicon Valley, and before you know it, every major social media company has its own spin on the concept. There exists now an “Airbnb but for [insert private property]” for everything from backyards to vehicles. Regulators scramble to keep up with the disruption one good idea can cause, so localities survey the country for agencies who pulled the trigger early on regulatory intervention. Both scenarios are perfectly captured by the rise of Swimply in North Carolina, “Like Airbnb but for backyard pools,” and local government’s attempts to squash what consumers call “pool sharing.”

On May 20, Mecklenburg County blasted out a warning to residents of the Charlotte-metro area, saying, “RESIDENTIAL POOLS FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS FORBIDDEN IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY.” The release specifies that “residents who rent out their private pools to third parties on a short-term basis” are running afoul of NC General Statute 130A-281, and homeowners in violation could face legal action. 

A homeowner with a backyard pool they’d like to share by the hour with locals might be surprised by the language of Statute 130A-281, which reads, “No public swimming pool may be opened for use unless the owner or operator has obtained an operation permit.” 

Mecklenburg is making the argument that a private oasis in your backyard being rented to someone on an app for a fee is now regulated under state law as a public swimming pool. Yes, a public pool like those with swimmers packed shoulder to shoulder, lifeguards giving lessons, and hosting swim meets for competitive teams.  

A public pool must follow all manner of regulations, including having a landline available to its swimmers for dialing 911 in an emergency. They must log daily tests of water pH levels, temperatures, and disinfectant levels. Backyard pools only have to meet the installation and structural requirements to be in use, and if you’ve ever had a friend with a pool, some are immaculate and others are nasty. 

Mecklenburg County’s Public Health Environmental Health Division copied the homework of Orange County and Buncombe County, which began sending threatening letters to homeowners in 2023 who were using the Swimply app to share their pool. Swimply responded with legal pushback from the firm Squire Patton Boggs (SPB), asserting that the departments were overstepping their authority in determining the legal status of pools rented on third-party apps. 

Regulatory agencies like to play copycat and coordinate with their colleagues in other states. They also “push where there is mush,” meaning any vagueness in state law is taken as an invitation to regulate. North Carolina’s 1999 Vacation Rental Act (VRA) is the existing law of the land for short-term rentals. Due to its age, the VRA has been at the center of one local fight after another, as sharing apps like Airbnb, VRBO, and FlipKey have come on the scene. Battles have raged from Wilmington to Asheville, and just as the state legislature began to get familiar with the concept of homesharing, new forms of peer-to-peer commerce arose like pool sharing (Swimply) and the peer-to-peer exchange of backyards for dogs to play in (Sniffspot). 

North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has not been amused by the fun people are having in renting backyard pools for birthday parties and social events. The agency released a memo in 2021 offering “guidance” to local health departments, which amounts to a strongly worded suggestion that can be enforced with impunity in the absence of clarification of law by the state legislature. 

Carolina Journal published an article recently by the John Locke Foundation’s Jon Sanders, who rightly called this a form of “regulatory dark matter,” where lone bureaucrats essential rule by blog post. A simple publication on an agency website, a press release, or any documentation bearing an official state watermark is enough for most to treat it as law when it is not. 

North Carolina’s copied homework is just one of many instances of regulatory dark matter that have popped up since Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services took action against pool sharing in 2021. Since then, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, Oregon, and Minnesota have tried their hand at eliminating the freedom to swim in a privately owned pool for a reasonable hourly rate. 

In many cases, the state agencies know that a backyard Swimply pool does not meet the legal standard for a public pool. Their solution is to overregulate and spook homeowners out of listing their property on the app. Minnesota threatened hosts with fines up to $10,000. The risk now outweighs the potential reward for supplemental income. 

Local officials frame their crackdowns as matters of safety and protecting the welfare of children, but they notably exempt backyard pools from their concern if the entire home is being rented on an app. There are hundreds of Airbnb properties throughout Mecklenburg County boasting pools among their amenities. Airbnb has fought hard for every inch of protection under the law in North Carolina, and good for them, but the door is being kicked shut on new concepts built on the gains of homesharing. 

The trend amounts to an equal protection issue for new entrants to the sharing economy, such as Swimply. NC DHHS exempts home rentals from their thinking on pool “safety” in no small part due to the coastal tourism industry where large rental properties boast private pools.

If you’ve ever been to eastern North Carolina, these McMansions with pools are a destination for booze-fueled late-night parties and wedding receptions, precisely the kind of activity you’d be most concerned about when it comes to drownings and general safety issues. But a homeowner in Charlotte or Hillsborough hosting a family of three for an innocent two hours of swimming is treated as anarchy. 

North Carolina’s state legislature must take action this year and clarify the state law’s scope of coverage for short-term rentals. It’s going to be a hot summer and thousands of families will be looking online for ways to cool off and entertain both kids and guests by the poolside. 

Homeowners should have the opportunity to make use of their private property to make ends meet. Consumers should have more choices for spots where they can swim. But above all else, the law should be clear to all. If consumer choice and property rights are not to be upheld in the state, the least the legislature can do is settle this issue for all the North Carolinians being intimidated and harassed by regulators with too much time on their hands. 

Originally published here

John Oliver’s weird hatred for food delivery apps

On the latest episode of HBO’s Last Week TonightOliver ripped into this branch of the sharing economyresponsible. We were told that the big players in this space — Grubhub, DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Postmates — are “leeches” that “undermine” the business of brick-and-mortar restaurants. Oliver equated their use of gig workers to slavery.

It’s yet more silliness.

The first of Oliver’s claims to be challenged is the notion that food delivery apps are a “parasite” middleman in the eatery-to-consumer relationship. Is the delivery app taking something away from restaurants or adding new, previously unrealized value? A little bit of both. Here, Oliver is getting at the commission fees charged by delivery apps, which reserve anywhere from 13% to 40% of the final billing for themselves, depending on what the restaurant agrees to when it registers with the app. 

Restaurateurs do operate in a tough industry, and margins can indeed be slim, even as tight as 5% for most in the business. The apps argue that they not only serve as a logistics and delivery service but also as a discovery platform for consumers looking to get some food. Top line: An exhausted parent enjoying a night home alone and eating delivery food was never a prospective customer for the restaurants downtown. Their potential market on any given night is driven by foot traffic, search engines, and word of mouth. Their business is built around consumers who have specific plans to eat out that night and enjoy being waited on. 

Delivery apps change all of that, and yes, they are disruptive. Consumers on delivery apps are usually looking for something specific. They want pizza, Peking duck, tacos, or a hoagie. In turn, the apps present local options ranging from corporate fast-food chains to locally owned restaurants. Those eateries now have a new potential market. It’s important to note that these apps also helped save many restaurants that would have otherwise lost all their business during the COVID-19 shutdowns.

However, in Oliver’s eyes, something evil and corrupt is happening when a delivery service brings a new customer and essentially charges a finder’s fee for locating that new customer. I’m reminded of James Bond’s words to Miss Moneypenny in GoldenEye, “What would I do without you?” To which Moneypenny rightly replies, “As far as I can recall, you’ve never had me.”

Gone are the days of needing to pay for junk mail flyers and door-hang menu campaigns to reach the consumer. Third-party apps cover that base easily.

But Oliver shovels so much luddite mud in a cleanly delivered monologue that any possible critic would be daunted about where to start. One throwaway falsehood is that the sharing economy is “the main source of income for many,” which is hardly true. According to the IRS, as well as internal data from relevant companies, 96% of Lyft drivers work elsewhere or are students in addition to driving. Ninety percent of delivery drivers for DoorDash worked less than 10 hours per week on the app. Most are making ends meet and covering troublesome bills, not looking to build a career.

Oliver’s worldview contends that when consumers are reaping new benefits, the consumers are somehow propagating an injustice. But what is a more virtuous basis for a business than providing what the community and consumers want? 

Oliver is a millionaire who can dine out any night he wants, wherever he wants, and can make time for doing so since his economic needs are met. The rest of us use delivery apps to fill potholes in our plans or holes in our pans. We choose these apps in the same way we choose dine-in restaurants — when it works for us. 

Originally published here

People renting backyard pools told to stop operating ‘public pools’

Backyard pools across the Triangle are available for rent, advertised on the Swimply app as ‘Hidden Gem’, ‘Private Oasis’ and ‘Tropical Retreat.’

However, some hosts on the site are getting push back from local officials. The hosts are being told to stop operating as a “public pool” or face consequences.

There is no law in North Carolina governing backyard pool rentals specifically; but guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services says if you rent out your backyard pool, the pool is considered public.

Orange County said they were following that guidance when they sent a letter to Chris Paolucci telling him to stop operating the pool in his backyard as a public pool.

Paolucci is a Swimply host and has been renting his backyard pool to others who may not have pool access.

“It gives that opportunity for people without, and it gives us an opportunity to cover our costs,” Paolucci told 5 On Your Side.

Swimply works like other sharing apps Airbnb and Vrbo, but it’s just for pools and visitors can rent by the hour.

“Typical it’s like 2 to 5 people coming, small families,” Paolucci explained about his experience hosting on Swimply.

Paolucci said he was confused when he got the letter from Orange County. The letter said Paolucci needed to have a public pool plan review, a commercial grade pool and an operational permit from the county to keep operating as a public pool.

Read the full text here

A NEW FRONT LINE: The latest skirmish in the short-term rental wars involves swimming pools.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the potential demise of Airbnb. The homesharing platform deemed innovative by some, and a nuisance by others, has helped to define the public debate over sharing apps that have transformed downtowns nationwide with e-scooters, rented condos and the presence of Uber and Lyft cars on every street corner. Those local debates have been fierce in North Carolina metros, including Raleigh-Durham, Asheville, Wilmington and Charlotte, and have given way to a tenuous compromise in the state between tech companies, homeowners and established players in the hospitality and tourism industry.

But Airbnb’s steep revenue declines, close to 50% drops in Asheville, Myrtle Beach and Austin, show that regulation designed with only one technology in mind will make it harder to adapt as new tech emerges. Look no further than the troubles surrounding Swimply, a pool-sharing app not dissimilar in concept from Airbnb, which is causing a stir in Orange County.

Homeowners in the Chapel Hill-Hillsborough area were served with threatening letters from the Orange County Health Department (OCHD) for using Swimply to rent out their backyard pool by the hour to customers on the other end of the app. Does that transaction transform a homeowner’s private pool into a public pool? Here you see where common sense and regulatory policy don’t overlap.

The OCHD says in its letter, “When an owner or resident of a single-family dwelling opens use of that dwelling’s pool to the general public, especially for rent, they are explicitly expanding the use of the pool to users beyond the private use of the dwelling’s residents and their guests, and the pool is no longer private.”

This language implies that making money from the sharing of your pool is certainly problematic but also leaves room for it to be an issue if you were just opening your backyard gate to anyone looking to cool off for free.

Operating a party house or poolside hangout spot for college students won’t get you a Neighbor of the Year award, but it doesn’t mean you’re running a “public pool.”

The ill-fated argument put forward by Orange County is that a private pool becomes classified as a public one if it’s being rented out on a digital app like Swimply. So, a homeowner near UNC with a quiet, backyard pool that sees a few rental guests per week must then face the same level of code enforcement, chemical maintenance and property inspection as, say, Woodcroft Swim & Tennis Club in Durham, which sees hundreds if not thousands of swimmers a week. It’s ill-fated because this approach to regulation has been tried in other states, such as Wisconsin, where the Department of Health Services was set straight by the state’s Consumer Protection department after pushback from the pool, yard and tennis court sharing app.

Put simply, Swimply cannot be singled out for regulation just because they are not mentioned by name in state law for governing vacation rental properties. In principle, the business model and features of an app like this are covered by the allowances made for private property owners who’ve made use of Airbnb or other apps to generate supplemental income off their property.

An Airbnb host in Burlington could in theory offer their entire home for daily rental, including its amenities: kitchen, laundry, ping pong tables and an outdoor pool, with no interference. That property could see an equal number of guests per week as a Swimply listing, but the only difference is that the Airbnb guests would also be utilizing overnight accommodations in addition to a swimming pool.

Why would it be the business of public health regulators to police backyard swimming, but only for people who will be there for an hour or two as opposed to overnight? This is the question that regulators in Orange County have yet to contend with, and the issue remains unresolved at the expense of homeowners and sharing app users who want to enjoy private pool access during a summer that promises extreme heat statewide. Either the state of North Carolina believes in private property rights and a level playing field for innovation, or it doesn’t.

North Carolina has a workable framework in place for the sharing economy in the longstanding Vacation Rental Act, but it’s going to have to be either modified or supplemented by new legislation to add clarity for property owners and consumers alike who enjoy innovations in the sharing economy. Senate Bill 667 stands as one such piece of legislation that could bring an end to the harassment of North Carolina homeowners by misguided health department officials. The bill, championed by state Sen. Tim Moffitt (R-Henderson, Polk and Rutherford), would in essence preempt localities from banning short-term rentals or imposing onerous costs to listing private property.

No doubt, the measure presents a clash of values for its Republican backers, who on the one hand tend to favor local control as opposed to dictates from Raleigh about how towns should be managed. However, the competing value — that of property rights protected under state law — makes SB 667 a worthwhile consideration for conflicted lawmakers.

Whether it’s SB 667 or something new in a coming legislative session, the legislature owes North Carolinians clarity about their right to rent private property, whether it be backyards, pools, hot tubs, spare rooms or whole single-family homes.

Originally published here

Kennedy Saves You From A Boring Summer

Isn’t it cool when people blend their brilliant ideas with technology? Well, residents in Montgomery County, Maryland disagree and are voicing their concerns over private pools being rented out to strangers looking to beat the heat, by using the app Swimply.  Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center and Contributing Editor at The Washington Examiner Stephen Kent joins Kennedy to discuss the regulations the county will try to put in place to control the “pool Airbnb.”

Listen here

Pool-sharing battle in Montgomery County is pure liberal NIMBYism

The sounds of summer are a thing of joy for most people. The birds, the splashing, dogs barking, and the neighborhood kids playing outside. Warmth and life return to the streets. But then there are places such as Montgomery County, Maryland . 

The Washington, D.C. , suburb and home to Chevy Chase, Gaithersburg, Rockville, and Takoma Park is a liberal stronghold within an already liberal region. It’s the kind of place where you can spot a progress pride flag in any direction and feel the welcoming presence of signs reading “No Human Is Illegal” every few yards. Of course, this won’t apply if you’re an “outsider” visiting a Montgomery County neighborhood with the hopes of swimming in a privately owned backyard pool.

A fast-growing app called Swimply has been causing a stir in communities nationwide, but most of all on the posh streets of Montgomery County, where residents are voicing anger and fear over private pools being rented out to strangers looking to beat the heat. It’s a “tremendous nuisance” that has “disturbed” residents and led them to call for a local crackdown on the service, which operates much like an Airbnb but for pools. The function of pool-sharing is simple in a world where app-based, short-term rental markets are now a mainstream idea.

Instead of consumers having to shell out $500 per season to access a private community pool, Swimply allows families and individuals to connect with homeowners who rent out their pools on an hourly basis. Rates average between $45 to $75 on Swimply. It’s a pretty good deal for everyone involved.

But then again, this is happening in a neighborhood that infamously sought to ban dogs from barking in 2019. The town of Chevy Chase naively thought it could drop $134,000 to turn a mud pit into a dog park without an outcry from residents, who similarly called it a “nuisance” bringing in outsiders to the neighborhood.

This language feels awfully coded for the 86.7% white suburb in a county where 60% of residents are Democrats and merely 14% are registered Republicans. It’s doubtful the worrisome outsiders they speak of in town meetings are similarly homogeneous. 

It’s understandable that some homeowners find it annoying when a pool party is being held next door. Thankfully, Montgomery County has tools already in place to help residents manage disturbances in their area, such as a web portal for submitting noise complaints. There’s also the bare minimum of neighborly behavior, which is verbal communication and conversation about community matters. The shortcut more often taken is to harangue town council members into banning these services in hopes of making innovations in the sharing economy go away. But they won’t.

That’s because none of this is new, thanks in large part to Airbnb’s success in advancing the commonsense idea that homeowners maintain the right to earn additional monthly income by sharing their property with others, if they so choose. Swimply will most likely win the right to equal protection under the short-term rental policies already in place for bigger players such as Airbnb.

The amenities being offered by Swimply, private pools and now pickleball courts, are already part of what an Airbnb user can enjoy when they rent out a whole property for a short stay. They can’t be denied to a Swimply user under a different set of arbitrary rules.

The wannabe regulators next door can’t decide on what the concern really is. In a letter to Councilman Will Jawando, 36 residents leaned on everything from noise and drownings to dog poop, strains on the sewer system, and, yes, the inherent racism of sharing economy apps as reasons to ban them. On paper, these “In This House We Believe” types aren’t anxious about visiting renters from the inner city; instead they say, “These pools do NOT have to comply with laws covering discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religious belief, etc. This means, of course, that the owners renting these pools will be able to refuse to rent on these bases. Does the County really want to promote activities that are permitted to discriminate?”

No one believes this is their genuine concern.

One of the concerned citizens told the local media about dog parks, “I’d like to be able to sit on my deck and maybe read a book and chat with a friend or have a glass of wine, and the dogs are barking.” Another co-signer to the letter told the Washington Post that she once had to close her window because of occasional noise.

Pool-sharing is just the latest addition to the growing network of peer to peer services that bring so much flexibility, fun, and adventure to the modern economy. It certainly won’t be the last. Consumers love it, as do countless homeowners with private property they wish to share. Let the people swim.

Originally published here

Pool-sharing is the latest target of regulators trying to shut down the sharing economy 

Summer is coming. For Americans looking to beat the heat, have some fun and take a swim, new options are becoming available thanks to innovations in the sharing economy. Most people have heard of Airbnb by now, a service that allows users to find a place to stay in a privately-owned residence. Now you can do the same thing for pools, thanks to apps like Swimply. If you don’t have your own backyard pool or can’t shell out on average $500 per season to access a private community pool, Swimply makes it infinitely more affordable for families and individuals by allowing them to connect with a homeowner who rents out their pool on an hourly basis. 

Rates average between $45 to $75 on Swimply. Not a bad deal if you’re just looking to host a one-off event or have a few poolside relaxation days each year. 

Whether it’s a work-from-home father who needs to get the kids out of the house on a warm day or a busy mom planning to host friends and family for a graduation party, Swimply adds private pools, hot tubs, private tennis, and pickleball courts to their list of choices for entertaining. There’s even been new innovation in the sharing of backyards so that dogs can have more off-leash playtime and exercise, thanks to an app called Sniffspot. Anyone with a dog and experience with public dog parks knows the incredible risk, as well as the benefits, of visiting a packed-out dog park. Starting this year, Uber will support peer-to-peer car-sharing, unlocking new value for car owners who might want to loan their car out when it’s not in use. 

These are exciting new services for consumers. 

So naturally, killjoys are making their move to regulate these services out of existence and eliminate choices for individuals looking to access pools and greenspace. The debate over Swimply has gotten particularly hot in one of the wealthiest counties in America, the D.C. suburb of Montgomery County, Maryland, where a handful of residents are complaining of additional traffic and noise in their neighborhoods.  

Montgomery County councilmember Will Jawando has already put forward a bill requiring registration of backyard pools that are being rented out, along with additional taxes plus a $150 licensing fee. If the county follows the lead of other localities frustrated with pool-sharing, they’ll saddle homeowners with the same health code regulations faced by public pools, enforced by local health code departments. 

What’s at issue here is not new in the slightest, thanks in large part to Airbnb’s success in advancing the common sense idea that homeowners maintain the right to earn additional monthly income by sharing their property with others, if they so choose. One Swimply user who spoke to WUSA 9 in Washington, D.C. spoke of how her husband had to close his business during COVID. The pool-sharing app allowed them to make up some of that lost income to weather the pandemic. 

Regardless of whether or not there’s a crisis, consumers should have a right to communicate with other members of their community and offer compensation for using private property. No one bats an eye at benevolent homeowners sharing their space regularly with friends and acquaintances. We’ve all been the beneficiary, at some point, of the kindness of a friend who was willing to share access to their vacation home or pool. Why shouldn’t that person also be free to secure supplemental income with that property as well? 

Whereas Airbnb and Uber had very clear opponents in established industries, such as the $4B hospitality sector and that of taxi cabs, the calls to crack down on Swimply appear to be plain old NIMBYism wrapped in rhetoric about public safety. NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) have a knack for reframing their hostility to choice as that of a safety concern. In Business Insider, one resident speaking against Swimply said, “I have nothing against these individuals fortunate enough to be able to pay $60 and up an hour to use a private pool, but this activity has greatly compromised our neighborhood. It is a tremendous nuisance.” She goes on to argue that these apps are unsafe for paying guests who don’t follow safety guidelines.

It’s understandable to have concerns about a steady influx of strangers next door, but hiding behind the worry that someone’s guests may dive in the 4-foot deep section of a private pool is hardly the business of neighbors or regulators. Insurance markets will almost certainly have something to say about pool-sharing, as is their prerogative. 

Pool-sharing is just the latest addition to the growing network of peer-to-peer services that brought so much flexibility, fun and adventure to the modern economy. It certainly won’t be the last. When it comes to the sharing economy, more is always better, and the availability of various services ensures consumers always have plenty of choices wherever they go, and whatever they’re doing.

UBER FILES : POURQUOI UN SCANDALE ?

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

Sharing economy: we need to rethink work

The Consumer Choice Center has launched a new and improved version of its Sharing Economy Index, ranking 60 cities around the world by their openness to innovation in the sector.

The index is primarily a guide for consumers, pointing them toward the most (and least) innovation-friendly cities. This way, they can take advantage of the best the sharing economy has to offer.

At the same time, it teaches regulators an important lesson about the sharing economy. The sector is a 21st-century marvel, from the way the company is set up to workers’ personal schedules. By contrast, efforts to impose one-size-fits-all legislation on the industry are stuck in the past and will only leave everyone worse off.

For centuries now, the usual workplace was organized around a clear hierarchy, where some completed a set number of known chores and others watched over them to make sure the job got done.

The traditional factory, with its manual laborers and overseers, fits the same description. As tasks in the economy multiplied and the world became richer, factories often gave way to offices and worker overalls became shirts and ties. The underlying structure of the workplace, nonetheless, remained the same.

The sharing economy blows this old model out of the water. Gone is the hierarchy of the factory assembly line or office arrangement, replaced by a network designed to match independent buyers and sellers in ways that benefit both parties. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Fiverr are platforms for private individuals to supply goods or services to those in need, with no controlling manager or bureaucratic system getting in the way of exchanges.

Such decentralization doesn’t stop at the structure that companies take. It extends all the way to the everyday tasks of those working in the gig economy. As noted in the Consumer Choice Center’s report, around 79% of independent laborers in the US and 80% of those in the EU cited the ability to produce their own schedule as the primary reason why they chose the position in the first place.

Thanks to its open-ended nature, the sharing economy is able to bounce back from serious challenges. If one part of the network is disrupted, another can take its place, with the larger web always surviving. For instance, Uber has been able to remain active in Ukraine during the Russian invasion, having to move 60 tons of supplies from Romania into Ukraine.

Regulators do not share the same positive picture of the gig industry. Instead, they want workers to enjoy the legal protection and benefits of being a regular salaried worker in a standard company. The same policymakers believe an employee must be able to demand unionization, healthcare benefits, or compensation for negligence and that platform owners should be forced to comply with these demands.

Were regulators to have their way with the sharing economy, however, decentralization would be no more. Suggested legislation marks the return to the old model of factory and office. The US Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the European Commission’s 2021 platform work proposal relegates gig workers to the status of permanent employees and standard managers based on a number of familiar criteria: work and safety, collective bargaining, and a required number of working hours per week.

The consequences would be awful all around. Far from legal certainty, some gig workers would be left jobless altogether, as they are unable to work on a 9 to 5 schedule. This hits vulnerable groups the hardest since they are most reliant on flexible work environments.

Consumers will suffer too. With more and more regulations, services become costlier and harder to acquire. Once layoffs intensify and companies go bankrupt, the goods and services that customers have grown to rely on may not be available anymore.

It’s advisable for policymakers to look toward the future rather than the past. Recognize and foster the strengths of the sharing economy by getting out of the way and letting workers, consumers, and the firms themselves decide the fate of the sharing economy.

Originally published here

41% of European consumers agree that sharing economy apps make life easier

The Consumer Choice Center commissioned the market research company Savanta to survey European consumers on four different EU policy-making areas: Consumer Choice and Government; Innovation & Sharing Economy; Agriculture & Food; and Science & Energy.

In February 2022, 500 people were surveyed in Belgium on their views on innovation, nuclear energy, agriculture, sharing economy, and government intervention in the economy.

Maria Chaplia, the Research Manager at the Consumer Choice Center, said: “The polling results are encouraging. European consumers overwhelmingly appreciate consumer choice. A wide array of agricultural regulations put forward by the EU and member states are at odds with what European consumers want.”

Key findings:

  • 69% of European consumers agree that the government should not restrict their freedom to choose.
  • 73% of European consumers think that the European Union should be more open to innovative solutions.
  • Two times more European consumers (41% agree and 22% disagree) agree that sharing economy apps makes their lives easier.
  • 69% of European consumers interviewed agree that innovation plays an important role in making their lives better.

“Innovation has made millions of European consumers better off. Thanks to platform economy apps such as Uber, Deliveroo, and many others, consumers can now choose between various delivery and transportation options. No wonder European consumers value the sharing economy apps so much,” said Chaplia.

“Platform economy apps have boosted consumer choice and given many Europeans the opportunity to work independently. Gig work provides flexibility which increases its attractiveness to many Europeans. However, in December 2021, the European Commission presented plans to regulate gig workers’ work conditions, which will essentially diminish the self-employment model. The overregulation of platforms will have spillover effects on consumer choice, and the EU should abstain from such moves,” concluded Chaplia.

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.  

Scroll to top
en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org