Copyright © 2020 Web Design Museum.org. All rights reserved.
What online platforms offer has since considerably evolved qualitatively, especially on the so-called working platforms. Websites such as Le Bon Coin, Indeed or LinkedIn continue to act as "simple" intermediaries. But mobility and delivery platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo, Stuart or Glovo and, to a lesser extent, freelance or jobbing platforms ( Comet, StaffMe, JobbyPepper, etc.) are much more "interventionist". They sometimes set or suggest a price, allow users to rate each other, set strict rules in their terms and conditions. Whether they wished for it or not, for some workers they have become an essential, sometimes the only, means of accessing income.
The stakes of the "interventionism" of platforms
This "interventionism" raises at least three problems.
Problem 1, the status of ride-hailing platforms
The first is that of the status of the platforms: neither totally "digital information services", in the sense of Directive 98/34/EC, nor traditional players, their regulation is not self-evident. Indeed, the European Commission noted in a communication from 2016, A European agenda for the collaborative economy, "whether or not a collaborative platform is considered to also provide the underlying service will normally have to be established on an individual basis. Several factual criteria and legal issues may play a role in this regard. The level of control or influence that the collaborative platform exerted on the provider of these services will generally have a large importance."
Considering themselves protected by Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce, Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market and Article 56 of the TFEU, the first ride-hailing platforms initially pleaded to be exempt from national legislations specific to public passenger transport Where necessary, compliance with these rules was the business of the self-employed drivers themselves.