publication . Article . 2016

UBERTRUST: How Uber Represents Itself to Its Customers Through its Legal and Non-Legal Documents

Guido Noto La Diega; Luce Jacovella;
Open Access English
  • Published: 10 Aug 2016
  • Publisher: OMICS
  • Country: United Kingdom
Abstract
This paper examines some of the key factors that contribute to build or erode users’ trust in a platform-based service such as the one provided by Uber Technologies Inc. As clarified by the European Commission, the future Internet cannot succeed without trust of online platforms’ users. The paper explores Uber’s web of relationships with different categories of users, i.e., ‘driver-partners’, ‘riders’, ‘developers’ and ‘business users’ through Uber’s legal and non-legal representations. By analysing Uber ‘legals’ (terms of service, privacy policy, etc.) and the non-legal representations of these norms through the wider Uber community ecosystem (forums, blogs, et...
Persistent Identifiers
Subjects
ACM Computing Classification System: ComputingMilieux_LEGALASPECTSOFCOMPUTING
free text keywords: M200, N100, The Internet, business.industry, business, Sociology, Corporate structure, Collective awareness, Privacy policy, Sharing economy, Terms of service, European commission, Transparency (graphic), Law
Related Organizations

1. Barnett V, Tomlison L (2014) The Uber app: the legal background to the outrage. ECL & P 16: 8.

2. Barratt S, Morgan J (2016) Uber and above. JLSS 61: 26-27.

3. Brown N (2015) Uber: TfL and the Taxonomy of Taximeters. Comps & Law 25: 23-26.

4. Dervodeja K, Verzijl D, Nagtegaal F, Lengton M, Rouwmaat E, et al. (2013) The sharing economy accessibility based business models for peer-to-peer markets. European Commission Business Innovation Observatory.

5. Graef I (2015) Market definition and market power in data: the case of online platforms. World Competition: Law and Economics Review 38: 473-505. [OpenAIRE]

6. Heinemann F, Shume M (2015) Uber, Airbnb, Netflix-Australia 's steps to tax the sharing and digital economies. TPIIT 13: 13-15.

7. McLean S, Samavi M (2015) EC's consultation on online platforms proves controversial. ECL & P 17: 6-8.

8. Noto La Diega G, Walden I (2016) Contracting for the ' Internet of Things': looking into the nest. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. [OpenAIRE]

9. Oei SY, Ring DM (2016) The tax lives of uber drivers: evidence from internet discussion forums. Tulane Public Law Research Paper 16: 4.

10. Olmstead K, Atkinson M (2015) Apps permissions in the google play store.

11. Oxford Internet Institute, SCF Associates Ltd (2010) Towards a future Internet: Interrelations between technological, social and economic trends. Final Report for DG Information Society and Media.

12. Syed N (2016) Regulating uberification . CTLR 22: 14-25.

13. Syed N (2015) The rise of uberification : getting the go-ahead in London.

14. Van der Luit-Drummond J (2015) Defining a driver as an employee or a “partner”. SJ 159: 8.

Citation: Diega GNL, Jacovella L (2016) UBERTRUST: How Uber Represents Itself to Its Customers Through its Legal and Non-Legal Documents. J Civil Legal Sci 5: 199. doi:10.4172/2169-0170.1000199 [OpenAIRE]

Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue