Uber wins on two fronts

The Queensland government has moved swiftly to defuse an issue that would have seen school buses, limousines and Dame Quentin Bryce's ComCar outlawed as a consequence of an amendment to an act that makes it illegal for ride-sharing service Uber to operate in the northern state.

According to the Brisbane Times, the act, amended by the Katter Party to close potential loopholes in the law, resulted in a broader definition for 'pre-booked passenger services'. Not only did this promise to catch Uber drivers in the net – and impose heftier fines on them – its "unintended consequence" saw a host of shuttle services and even the former governor-general's government limousine considered illegal.

After Stirling Hinchcliffe, the state's transport minister, received "urgent legal advice", the Labor government, with support from the LNP opposition, rescinded the amendment.

While Uber is legal in other states around the country, it remains illegal in Queensland, so the latest changes to the act in Queensland are not an outright victory for the service, although the company may still win the war in the north, if a parliamentary review due to conclude in August favours Uber.

On the other hand, a decision by the Advertising Standards Bureau is a definitive win for Uber in New South Wales. After the company lodged a complaint with the ASB concerning advertising and marketing material funded by the NSW Taxi Council, the Bureau's Advertising Claims Board found in Uber's favour.

The Advertising Claims Board is described by the ASB as an offshoot that resolves complaints from competitors about advertising material. In this specific instance, Uber is a nominal competitor to the taxi industry in NSW, represented by the Taxi Council. The complaint pertained to two radio commercials and two print advertisements that were also accessible via links on the Taxi Council's website.

According to Uber's complaint, the advertisements insinuated that ride-sharing services were unsafe. In the complaint Uber deemed the claims made to be misleading. The Taxi Council responded to the complaint by declaring that the claims could be substantiated. Furthermore, the Taxi Council added, the complaint fell outside the purview of the Claims Board because the advertisements were no longer being aired or distributed by the time the complaint was lodged.

The Taxi Council did acknowledge the advertisements could be accessed from the website, but argued that the website be considered 'excluded public relations communications'. This hinged on a change of definition for advertising, taking effect from January 1 of this year. Prior to that date, the advertising Code of Ethics excluded 'public relations communications (corporate or consumer) and related activities' from the definition.

Uber lodged its complaint in December 2015, but the case wasn't heard by the Claims Board until after the new definition took effect. The Taxi Council argued that the complaint should be decided in accordance with the definition that applied at the time the case was heard. Not only did the Claims Board settle on the definition as it stood at the time Uber lodged the complaint, it also noted that the advertisements had been in the public domain previously, which superseded their subsequent status as 'public relations' material only available through the website.

In the circumstances, the Claims Board found that the Taxi Council had breached sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Code of Ethics, and that the offending advertisements were misleading and "likely to cause damage to a competitor".

The Taxi Council has now removed the links from its website.