Platform economy database
Database of initiatives and court cases in the EU
Eurofound’s platform economy database provides information on 411 initiatives and court cases that exist or have been implemented in relation to activities in the platform economy. The database was last updated in March 2025 and provides metadata for each entry, such as geographical scope, year, type of initiative, actors involved, sector and companies concerned. Initiatives include legal instruments such as legislative changes or court decisions, as well as voluntary interventions undertaken by different stakeholders to address issues around platform work.
Tag
Active
Italy
On 1 March 2017, the Court of Turin banned Uber's 'Ubepop's service as it found it in breach of competition law. The ruling took into account the precautionary measures of the Court of Milan (May and July 2015), and inhibited the use of UberPop on national territory.
Ruling 01/3/2017, n. 20770/2056 R.G
The facts Taxi associations and operators sued Uber group companies, arguing that UberPop constituted unfair competition under Italian law [Art. 2598 n. 3 c.c.[(https://www.brocardi.it/codice-civile/libro-quinto/titolo-x/capo-i/sezione-ii/art2598.html). This followed earlier interim rulings by the Court of Milan in 2015 that had already blocked UberPop. Taxi Associations claimed that Uber organised a service equivalent to radio taxis but used drivers lacking the mandatory public transport licenses, professional certificates (CAP), registrations, regulated tariffs, and specific insurance required by law. This violation allowed Uber to offer services at much lower prices, creating an unfair competitive advantage. In its defence, Uber argued UberPop was merely an IT platform connecting users for shared, occasional, non-professional transport, not a taxi service. It claimed drivers were free users, not subordinates, choosing if/when to drive, and the payment was a cost reimbursement managed by Uber (which took a 20% service fee). Uber contended existing transport laws didn't apply to this private, shared model.
The Turin Court rejected Uber's defence. It found Uber organized the entire "commercial chain," recruiting drivers, managing communications, setting and varying fares (surge pricing), handling payments, and marketing the service. The court concluded Uber acted as a transport provider itself, not just an intermediary, and that the UberPop system functioned "substantially like the traditional radio taxi service," albeit using technology and unlicensed drivers recruited by Uber. Unfair Competition Ruling: The court held that by operating without adhering to the extensive regulations (licensing, safety checks, tariff controls, insurance) imposed on the licensed taxi sector, Uber gained an "undue advantage" through cost savings. This violation of public market rules constituted unfair competition, as licensed operators could not compete on equal terms ("parity of arms") without breaking the law themselves. The court also dismissed Uber's requests to refer the case to the Constitutional Court or the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). It stated public safety concerns prioritised over economic freedom and cited existing CJEU case law indicating that national regulation of such transport services was compatible with EU freedoms. Final Decision: The Court of Turin rejected Uber's arguments, declared the UberPop service constituted unfair competition, and inhibited (banned) the use of the UberPop app nationwide. It also banned any similar service organizing transport by unlicensed individuals for payment on demand. This decision effectively confirmed and absorbed the earlier injunctions from the Court of Milan.
On 7 April 2017, the Court of Rome the court ordered a halt to Uber's services across Italy, specifically including Uber Black and potentially other services like Lux, Suv, Van, …
On 2 July 2015, the Court of Milan confirmed the interim injunction obtained by the Taxi Drivers Association of May 2015. Several consumers' associations joined the Taxi Drivers Association in …
The platform economy is one of those moving targets, which, despite receiving increasing media and policy attention, has proven difficult to regulate. Given the heterogeneity of employment relationships, business models, types of platform work and cross-border issues, this is not surprising.
Technological change is accelerating as the capacity of electronic devices to digitally store, process and communicate information expands. Digitalisation is transforming the EU economy and labour markets: nearly one-third of EU workplaces are categorised as highly digitalised. What are the implications of the digital revolution for employment and work?
The rapid rise of the platform economy has led to a marked transformation of European labour markets, and existing regulatory frameworks and voluntary initiatives have yet to catch up. While platform work offers opportunities for workers and employers and potentially contributes to innovation, economic growth and competitiveness in the EU, it has been criticised from the beginning because of the poor employment and working conditions often experienced by workers.
While 2020 may come to be seen as the year platform work gathered pace and started to go mainstream – thanks in large part to COVID-19 containment measures sparking an increase in food and grocery delivery – 2021 could be the year that regulation of platform work is set in motion.
