Uber loses its licence in London

The transport authority responsible for transport in Greater London revoked Uber's licence for the British capital on Monday citing safety concerns. Uber plans to appeal the decision. While some praise the authority for acting responsibly, others say it's just propping up an old monopoly.

Open/close all quotes
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (DE) /

Victory for the taxi lobby

The decision is regrettable, writes Philip Plickert, London correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:

“Uber cars are more modern than traditional Black Cabs. And Uber's fares were significantly lower than those of the Cabs, which had what amounted to a monopoly for decades. In many countries the official taxis are quite expensive, which is what allowed Uber to revolutionise the market. The fact that the new competitor Uber is now being put out of action is partly its own fault due to safety glitches, but the stakeholders of the old taxi lobby are also behind this move. They claim to be defending customer safety but all they really care about is their once secure monopoly.”

New Statesman (GB) /

This is exactly how regulation should work

The New Statesman can't understand those who criticise the withdrawal of Uber's license:

“Right-leaning commentators are wailing that this shows that Sadiq Khan hates private enterprise, London is closed for business, and a load of other annoying nonsense. It's rubbish, sorry: this is exactly how regulation should work. An operator isn't safe enough, so the regulator has revoked its licence. If the operator improves, it can keep its licence. Great! If the operator doesn't improve, we're better off without it. Fantastic! Either way, the consumer wins. This decision isn't about being against business: it's about being anti-bad business.”

El Mundo (ES) /

The company must rectify shortcomings

This is not about saying yes or no to Uber but about how the company operates, El Mundo concludes:

“Uber transports 3.5 million passengers via 45,000 drivers, and the usefulness of the service is beyond doubt. But just as the platform has a right to offer its services, it also has the obligation to respond to the shortcomings of its model which it has failed to address to date. It should correct its course to regain its license and avoid the risk of losing it in many other cities too.”