In the immediate aftermath of Transport for London’s decision not to renew its licence to operate in London, it must have seemed to Uber that events were going its way. Not for the first time, a regulator had attempted to stand in its way, and the company had turned to its tried-and-tested playbook.
Uber deployed representatives in the media to say London was “closed to innovative companies”. It briefed newspapers that Khan had rejected multiple requests to meet. It submitted a public petition with more than 500,000 signatures to the mayor; another 20,000 emails from Uber drivers were sent to him directly.
Uber thought it was locked in a popularity contest – but TfL doesn’t care about being popular.
Now Sadiq Khan has backed TfL, and Uber’s chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, has publicly apologised for the company’s mistakes and flown to London for a private meeting with the TfL commissioner, Mike Brown. It is shaping up to be a real test of Uber’s tendency to push the boundaries of regulation.
In the course of its aggressive worldwide expansion, the company has become astute at leveraging public opinion, controlling the narrative, and driving wedges between transit regulators and the political bodies, or individuals, they report to.
In part, this strategy works because politicians are naturally more susceptible to the pressure of negative publicity than regulators – but as with everything at Uber, it serves a narrative purpose as well. A meeting with the person in charge tells the public that you are special. Once that precedent has been set, it is hard for a regulator to reassert the status quo.
Therein lies Uber’s problem in London, where TfL runs something of a dictatorship. While it regularly meets with the London Assembly, TfL is not accountable to it, answering only to one person: the mayor.
Sadiq Khan’s swift confirmation of support for TfL not only robbed Uber of the opportunity to drive a wedge between politician and regulator, it left the company with few other political options.
The last time its right to operate in the city came under serious threat was in 2015, when then-mayor Boris Johnson proposed tighter regulations against private hire. Earlier this year it was revealed that David Cameron and George Osborne had both lobbied on Uber’s behalf, and the mayor had backed down.
Though there is no evidence that it was directly sought by Uber, Theresa May’s condemnation of TfL’s decision suggested a similar intervention from above. She said Khan had “damaged the lives of those 3.5 million Uber users” and put tens of thousands of jobs at risk with his “disproportionate” response.
“Yes, there are safety concerns and issues for Uber to address,” she said. “But what I want to see is a level playing field between the private firms and our wonderful London taxis, our black cabs, our great national institution.”
The prime minister’s words were hardly likely to sway Khan given the political gulf between them. But they also exposed that May didn’t really understand the position he and TfL were setting up to defend. As the #boycottblackcabs backlash to TfL’s decision went to show, neither did many others.
TfL’s battle against Uber has never been about sticking up for black cabs, no matter how it has been framed.
The industry certainly does not like Uber for skirting too close to the “ply for hire” (respond to hailing in the street) regulations that distinguish between taxis and private hire operators. It had been lobbying TfL to not renew Uber’s licence for months.
Although TfL has regulated the taxi trade since 2000, it has never been its defender. In fact, its perceived ambivalence and unwillingness to do so has long been a point of frustration among London cabbies.
What TfL cares about is keeping London well-regulated, moving and safe. Critically, that desire extends beyond cabs; it covers buses as well.
Addison Lee, the last major minicab firm to make waves in the capital, learned the perils of interfering with the bus network. London taxi drivers had long alleged that Addison Lee was skirting the boundaries between private hire and taxi operation when in 2012, the company’s then-chairman John Griffin instructed his drivers to defy the law and drive in bus lanes.
TfL leaped into action. An injunction was issued. The firm appealed, the case went to the European Court of Justice, and TfL prevailed. Addison Lee had been reminded that it wasn’t special – and it could indicate how TfL’s battle against Uber might develop as it appeals the decision in court.
The stakes are high, as are the number of lawyers involved. But TfL has an excellent record and will go into this well prepared. If anything, the size of the legal and public challenge suggests that perhaps TfL believes its case to be even stronger than it is letting on.
As the outstanding £95m of congestion charge penalties from London’s foreign embassies goes to show, TfL doesn’t fight legal battles it’s not sure it can win. The mayor – a lawyer himself – is also unlikely to have hitched his star to TfL’s unless he expects it to rise. Being prepared to make unpopular decisions and stand up to multinationals says “statesman” rather than “politician” – but only if you can pull it off.
In reality, this conflict is exactly as it’s been billed: TfL is concerned that Uber has broken regulations in a city where roads are already under pressure, where private hire driver numbers have almost doubled since 2014.
But it’s bad news for those who see TfL’s decision as a triumph for black cabs, or even as a victory over the gig economy. Uber may have had its knuckles rapped, but Lyft or any number of competitors who behave more subserviently could step into the gap – and there are no signs of a crackdown on other giants of the gig economy such as Deliveroo.
In some ways it augurs well for Uber’s own future in London, too. TfL’s issues aren’t ideological, they’re pragmatic. If Uber is smart enough to realise this and find a way to make concessions, then a new licence will follow. TfL isn’t asking Uber not to be a bully – it just wants it to acknowledge that TfL is a bigger one.
John Bull is the editor of London Reconnections
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook to join the discussion, and explore our archive here
