Legal status of Uber's service

Uber Technologies Inc, an American international technology company. Uber B.V. (Besloten Vennootschap, is pretty similar to the English Limited Ltd) is owned by the Dutch company, Rasier Pacific V.O.F. (Vennootschap onder Firma) They are the subject of ongoing protests and legal action from taxi drivers, taxi companies, and governments around the world.

Uber is involved in at least 173 lawsuits. As of mid-2015, protests had been staged in Germany, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom, among other nations, and dangerous incidents involving passengers have been documented. Uber executives were arrested in France in June 2015. In December 2014, Uber was banned in Spain and in two cities in India. Uber continues to be involved in disputes with several governmental bodies, including local governments in the U.S. and Australia. Questions of employment law, consumer protection, unfair commercial practices, tax law, and insurance are common.

Governments have been largely unable to stop Uber's operations in their jurisdictions because its operations are conducted primarily over the Internet. In addition, Uber is said to use aggressive tactics, such as bullying and hiring investigators to "dig up dirt" on journalists who criticize them. Portland, Oregon's transportation commissioner called Uber management "a bunch of thugs". A commissioner in Virginia who opposed Uber was flooded with emails and calls after Uber distributed his contact information to all of its users in the state.

Uber is an app-based transportation network headquartered in San Francisco, California, which operates in cities in many countries. The company uses a smartphone application to receive ride requests and then sends these trip requests to their drivers.

In May 2015, the Australian Taxation Office issued a directive stating that drivers that generate income through ride-share is considered a business and advised those providing a ride-sharing service that they need to have an Australian Business Number and be registered for GST. Uber was quick to respond to ATO's directive and lodged documents to the Federal Court arguing that the public issue by the ATO "unfairly targets Uber's driver-partners". According to a source in the ATO, Uber was not enthusiastic about negotiating the GST subject, and therefore the ATO resorted to their most undesirable option which was to classify ride-share drivers as taxi drivers. This is despite the standard applied to other small Australian businesses, in which any business grossing less than $75,000 is not required to collect and remit GST.

...
Wikipedia