Reply to post:

Surge pricing? How about surge fines: Pennsylvania orders Uber to cough up $11.4m


@Gene Cash

And that's your choice. But it doesn't make Uber legal.

Every time some one points out that Uber are breaking the rules and laws, the response is: "but it's good for me". Couldn't be happier but that is not a response to the point.

Likewise, you choosing to employ an unlicensed builder does not mean that operating as a builder without a license is legal and that doesn't change no matter how difficult it is to find a build or how desperate your need.

Utility does not equal legality.

In Australia, it is illegal to distill alcohol at home without a license from the tax office. If you get caught, arguing that alcohol is too expensive and the bottle-shops are too far anyway doesn't change the fact that you have broken the law and it won't change the fact that you will be penalised for it.

Nor would it help to argue that Australia's liquor laws are backwards (they are) and the alcohol excises exorbitant (it is).

If you operated a home still and then made a profit selling to others - something that is illegal nearly everywhere - you could of course complain that you are 'innovating' and 'disrupting' and 'democratising' the alcohol industry and that you are providing a service that people want. You could say that; I just don't think it would get any traction with the authorities.

But let's go a bit further - let's imagine you were caught illegally distributing alcohol and the authorities officially instructed you to stop but you kept doing it - not even slowing down. What do you think would happen when if you were caught again and tried to trot out the above spiel?

Let's be clear: I am not arguing that Uber shouldn't be legal; I am arguing that when the authorities have TOLD them they are operating illegally and FORMALLY instructed them to stop then it is not unreasonable and certainly not "absurd" that a sizable fine be leveled.

The law may be "absurd" but being fined for knowingly and deliberately breaking it after being specifically warned to stop is certainly not because Uber's behaviour here makes it clear that they believe they can break the law. What other conclusion can be drawn?

If you want to argue that Uber's behaviour was not breaking the rules then please do.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021