The Uruguayan Antitrust Commission, after a series of legal and technical reports, just decided for Uber in a case originally filed by the Uruguay Taxi Owners Union ("Patronal").
Decision 93 on the one hand rejected the Taxi Owners Union claim against Uber and concluded that Uber's business model had no anticompetitive elements and does not violate any of the laws or regulations under the Antirust Commission's jurisdiction. Even more significantly, the Antitrust Commission took the initiative, at Uber's request, to issue non-binding recommendations to Congress and local governments to seek pro-competitive regulation in all regulatory frameworks related to this market, pursue equal treatment for all interested parties, avoid unjustified requirements or entry barriers that may jeopardize new agents' access, and ensure its regulations are not an obstacle for the development of new business models.
Decision 93 was picked up immediately by the press and mass media because of the far-reaching implications in a situation that has been on the front pages almost constantly since Uber started operations last November. A cabinet meeting the following day devoted significant time to assessing the decision.
Uber was a success in the Uruguayan market as from day one and had been seeking to be formally admitted so that the drivers using the application can operate legitimately and pay their taxes, as well as not be the brunt of discrimination. Although the highly influential taxi owners lobby initially managed to rally the political system behind prohibiting Uber from operating, and aggressive measures were taken both at the local and national level, Uruguay's strong tradition as a software powerhouse soon started to create cracks in this consensus. Leaders of the software and digital economy sector started voicing their concerns about the risk of jeopardizing both Uruguay's image as a high-tech jurisdiction and also their concrete business goals. The Antitrust Commission decision puts the discussion back on how to maximize consumer welfare with regulatory environments that do not hijack new developments and business models under regulations made decades ago.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
