tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post1866331726722400123..comments2024-03-28T02:32:17.979-07:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: Why Uber isn’t Appy: the ECJ defines the difference between transport and digital servicesSteve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-26030036868506407102017-12-22T04:01:53.475-08:002017-12-22T04:01:53.475-08:00Not really - as Professor Woods said "this is...Not really - as Professor Woods said "this issue may have consequences for other platforms in the sharing economy..."Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-64317458793984700572017-12-22T02:13:36.220-08:002017-12-22T02:13:36.220-08:00In my reading, I respectfully disagree with the ti...In my reading, I respectfully disagree with the title. The ECJ did not define the difference between transport and digital services and the author mentions that clearly in the text of the article. The Court only qualified Uber's services. There is no real theory of precedent harmoniously featuring in ECJ's practice. Given the diversity of matters and difference of cultural backgrounds of the cases that make it to the court that would not even be a desirable practice. The patchwork concept applies equally to ECJ caselaw. Nevertheless, making more of that is said in the Court rulings could be a dangerous path. Lexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049010105352931084noreply@blogger.com