Uber’s London ban isn’t about innovation, it’s about its attitude towards society
400,000 Londoners are aghast at Uber’s temporary ban. Yes that’s right! A lot of people a) think the proposed ban is permanent and b) assume that’s the end of the story.
More worryingly is that they also seem to not fully appreciate why the ban might come into force. There’s talk on my Facebook wall about competitors not liking innovation or TFL being behind the curve. Both are rot!
Uber might be banned (temporarily depending on court action) due to its attitude towards regulation, how it ignores regulatory regimes and how it demonstrates application and compliance towards basic rules.
Uber’s entire scale logic has been about entering a city, scaling drivers and ignoring regulation. It’s a low effort model that sees it bypass and circumnavigate regulatory bodies which it knows are necessary but often cumbersome and take time to catch up.
The struggle here has multiple dimensions.
Firstly the regulations TFL are seeking Uber to abide by are hardly to do with innovation. It’s asking Uber to commit to some pretty basic and fundamental rules on reporting serious criminal offences and how it manages medical certificates and disclosure and barring. The ban will come into force because TFL is not seeing any evidence of compliance.
This shouldn’t even be an issue. If Uber can’t demonstrate that basic competence then it shouldn’t be in business. TFL cannot provide a license to a business that fails in that regard. Just imagine the scenario when someone is physically attacked and it emerges Uber lacked rigorous checks, TFL knew, but gave license anyway. All hell would break loose.
The second issue which is much broader is that Uber has shown a disregard for regulation whether they exist, are new or are seen as behind the curve. It’s Greyball technology tells you all your need to know about their attitude to good governance. Its important to remember that TFL haven’t even mentioned Uber’s behaviour in other, more worrying examples of corporate culture. There’s no mention of the India nightmare or the treatment of ride passengers who’ve been assaulted.
The third issue is the strange way Uber seems adverse to engaging with regulatory authorities.
Is it really that hard to enter a market, discuss your business, modify if necessary and lobby for your ideal world?
Is the company that developed an amazing app and effortless customer experience really incapable of basic governmental engagement?
Uber’s problems lie in the fact that it’s lacks a public and human face. It launches on society but doesn’t care for it. It talks of innovation but ignores the unintended consequences that innovation can have. It doesn’t see flooding a market backed up with ballooning investor money that stifles competition and creates a monopoly as a bad thing.
The idea that Uber will be banned permanently in London is ludicrous.
Uber should see this as their moment of enlightenment handed to them by a professional and technocratic regulatory body. I’m assuming Dara right now is having a Tiger Team formed to work through their London problems and make a fix. Running to court, launching a petition and shouting on Twitter is Uber’s first instincts. Maybe it should be to self reflect, walk to city hall, to sit down and talk.
And here’s a wildcard idea. How about we get 400,000 people to sign a petition to get Uber to sort themselves out.
