Sure. But the question whether somebody is a 'customer' (actually a 'consumer', as the law is about 'Verbraucher') when using Google products or not is a matter of law. Personal opinions have not practical impact.
drinkypoo tries to argue semantics, when the only definition of 'customer' that is relevant here is the one that German law uses.
German law disagrees.
Pardon me if I do not get teary-eyed over the notion of German law.
Well, since this is about a German court talking about German consumers and (I assume) addressing Google Germany, German law is pretty much all that matters.
Yeah and, how can that judge claim that German Google customers do not have a way to communicate with Google? German Google customers send mail to support-de@google.com and a Google bot tells them to F*** Off! Not only does that constitute communication but the message is pretty clear.
Point is that that's not enough for Google to fulfill their legal obligation. They have to read the emails and (supposedly) react in some meaningful way.
Of course, traditionally it has not proven to be a particularly intelligent strategy to tell the Germans to F*** Off! since they tend to react badly to that (read: Invasions, panzers, stukas, u-boats, V-1 cruise missiles, V-2 rockets... etc) but If Google wants to take a shot at it they I say let them try.
If I look at the last 60 years I come to the conclusion that the US has become the new Germany.
They're agreeing that Google use their personal data, but there's no suggestion they're going to get paid for it. The "payment" is that Google provide them services, without any support.
And that's the point: German law says that you can not provide a service without a certain amount of support. Google HAS to be available to German customers via email.
Also, insurance may not cover you if you're carrying passengers for-profit (though it could be difficult for them to find that out).
How so?
'Hey, I'm sorry that you just got injured while being in my car, but could you please not mention that you booked me on Uber to anybody, like the police, because I'm not covered for this case?'
Yeah, right. That will work out just fine...
I see Uber and the like as being in the same vein - and while Germany, London, whatever ends up 'banning' these services, I'm sure they realize that it's not going to stop then and there, and the rules will eventually have to be adjusted.
And once the rules have been adjusted Uber is free to do business according to those rules.
But TODAY they have to do business according to TODAYS rules. If they think the rules are outdated, they should work on changing them. But until then they have to follow them.
Do you really would want to do business with AT&T or Microsoft or GM without any laws in place that regulate the contracts?
Trust me: You don't. They have the power of a multi billion company and you have nothing.
They would dictate all the rules and you could agree or die.
And no, the free market wouldn't solve the problem: There would be no smaller competitors, because there would be no law that protects them from the big meanie.
The free market is an ideal that ignores reality.
We need government regulation because we are not on equal standing in regards to the companies we would like (or need, for want of alternatives) do business with.
If they don't follow the laws that other companies in this business have to follow -- of course it should extend that far.
The fact that Uber explicitly says that they are going to ignore this court decision speaks volumes.
These permits, insurances ect. are there to protect the customers of the taxi service.
If a Uber driver causes an accident, what will happen?
His private car insurance will not cover any damages he incurred while driving his car for profit, and it's very unlikely that he has the kind of money to pay damages for injuries out of his pocket.
'relevant tests', 'approriate insurance'
Sure every driver has that for the purpose of driving oneself or friends and relatives.
But once you want to drive people for profit you have to follow stricter rules, pass more tests and have more insurance.
Cab drivers have to do that, so why shouldn't Uber do the same?
So it will be interesting to see how the courts explain how these services are different.
The decision explicitely mentions the fact that Uber and the drivers are doing it for profit.
The Mitfahrzentralen work on a no profit basis, and the drivers don't make a profit either and would drive that way anyway.
This isn't about protectionism.
This is about countries having laws and expecting everybody to follow them.
Sure, US companies are not used to do that, but that is a problem of the US, not of the other countries.
Germany has laws regulating persons and companies that want to be active in the transport business. These laws where not made to keep US companies out. The laws are a lot older than Uber. They are there to protect consumers and give them a certain amount of safety.
Ubers profits are not more important than everybodies safety.
How so?
The rules in question here are questions of insurance, of proper training for drivers, of car maintenance... the same rules that cab drivers and companies in Germany have been following for many years.
How are these rules 'made to prevent US companies from gaining traction'?
Unless of course, having local law that everybody (local companies as well as US companies) have to follow is preventing US companies in your eyes. I mean, sure, they are not used to actually having to follow laws they don't like. It's real mean of European governments and regulators to actually check whether companies follow the law...
Not just any company, only companies operating in multiple countries that are just trying to benefit from each countries privileges but not fulfilling those responsibilities.
No. By not handing over the data Microsoft is actually complying with European data protection laws.
Following the ruling of the US court would be Microsoft not fulfilling responsibilities in other countries.
I can't say how things are done in other countries, but I would assume that just like in the US the company follows the laws of that land.
Except that the regulatory body here in Berlin responsible for public transport says they don't.
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
