International Rideshare Policy Evolution: A Media Analysis Thivja Sribaskaran and Ellen MacEachen School of Public Health and Health Systems University of Waterloo September 10th, 2018 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 5 NEWS ANALYSIS RATIONALE ..........................................................................................................7 NEWS AND THEME ANALYSIS FINDINGS ................................................................................. 7 INTERNATIONAL TIMELINE OF REGULATORY CHANGES ...................................................................8 CHANGES IN JURSISDICTIONAL LEVEL ........................................................................................... 11 WHERE UBER PULLED OUT OR THREATENED TO PULL OUT ............................................................ 14 JURISDICTIONS WHERE UBER IS BANNED OR AWAITNG REGULATORY APPROVAL ......................... 15 REASONS FOR REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS .................................................................................. 17 Safety ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Health ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Insurance ............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Fair Competition ................................................................................................................................................ 20 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX 1: CANADA.......................................................................................................... 23 1.1 BRITISH COLUMBIA ................................................................................................................ 23 1.2 CALGARY ................................................................................................................................ 25 1.3 EDMONTON ........................................................................................................................... 27 1.4 QUEBEC.................................................................................................................................. 30 1.5 TORONTO .............................................................................................................................. 31 1.6 WINNIPEG .............................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX 2: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ........................................................................... 35 1.1 ALASKA .................................................................................................................................. 35 1.2 AUSTIN (TEXAS) ...................................................................................................................... 36 1.3 CALIFORNIA ........................................................................................................................... 37 1.4 COLORADO ............................................................................................................................ 40 1.5 MICHIGAN .............................................................................................................................. 43 1.6 MINNEAPOLIS (MINNESOTA) .................................................................................................. 44 1.7 NEVADA ................................................................................................................................. 46 1.8 NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................... 47 1.9 NEW YORK ............................................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX 3: OCEANIA ......................................................................................................... 50 1 1.1 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ........................................................................................... 50 1.2 NEW SOUTH WALES ............................................................................................................... 51 1.3 NEW ZEALAND ....................................................................................................................... 53 1.4 NORTHERN TERRITORY ........................................................................................................... 56 1.5 QUEENSLAND ......................................................................................................................... 59 1.6 SOUTH AUSTRALIA ................................................................................................................. 60 1.7 TASMANIA ............................................................................................................................. 62 1.8 VICTORIA ............................................................................................................................... 63 1.9 WESTERN AUSTRALIA ............................................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX 4: EUROPE .......................................................................................................... 69 1.1 DENMARK .............................................................................................................................. 69 1.2 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................................................ 70 1.3 FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 71 1.4 FRANCE .................................................................................................................................. 72 1.5 GERMANY .............................................................................................................................. 75 1.6 ITALY...................................................................................................................................... 79 1.7 NORWAY ................................................................................................................................ 80 1.8 SPAIN ..................................................................................................................................... 82 1.9 SWEDEN ................................................................................................................................. 84 1.10 UNITED KINGDOM (LONDON) ............................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX 5: LIST OF SOURCES ............................................................................................. 88 Thivja Sribaskaran, BSc is a graduate from the University of Waterloo Health Studies program. She will pursue her Master’s of Public Health degree at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario in September 2018. Ellen MacEachen, PhD is an Associate Professor with the School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo. Her research focuses on the changing nature of work and how this affects worker health. We gratefully acknowledge funding for this project from the Hallman Undergraduate Research Award, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo. This analysis is part of a larger CIHR-funded study that is focused on understanding the occupational health risks of ridesharing work. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of where Uber has been regulated and what regulatory requirements were put in place. This analysis is part of a larger CIHR-funded study that is focused on understanding the work of ride-sharing services, such as Uber, how this work affects the health and safety of drivers and passengers, and what policy solutions exit to address these health and safety risks1. Accordingly, our main research question was: in what jurisdictions has Uber been regulated, and what were the regulatory requirements? To address our main question, we also examined the following questions: At what level is Uber governed (e.g. federal, state or municipal)? What is the timeline of Uber’s presence in each jurisdiction? What role did safety, health, insurance and fair competition play in the regulative process? A news media analysis was conducted to address these questions. This allowed us to focus not only in new policies and regulations that were developed, but also on political and economic stances (or various stakeholders) and processes that underlay these decisions. News articles also allowed for a grasp of the timeline of development of ride-share policies. Our search focused on high income countries,