The recent decision to ban Uber by TfL feels to me like backlash. As does the decision by Facebook to hand over 3000 ads. And the one by the EU to fine Google for anti-competitive behaviour.
I believe what we are seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to the law not being adequate for the situations that our digital, networked world is creating. The law has failed to keep up with digital changes, failed to deal with new-new by relying on old-old, and generally failed to protect its citizens not by any malevolent intent but by the sheer length of time it takes to make law. Most consumer protection law has its origins at the start of the 20th Century, and deal with buying goods locally, not services internationally. Issues regarding the suitability of Sale of Goods legislation at the dawn of the software eras early in the 1970s, and again in the 1980s. We could have predicted we would get here again in this new era of tech. The pace at which countries make law is slow (rightly so) and the pace at which countries make law between themselves rivals the production process of amber. So what we see in these three actions is a reaction against this; in the absence of anything else on which to rely, any action will do. Inaction will simply not. Here we have an example of:
- a city taking action where its national lawmakers have not (London)
- one of these digital disruption upstarts trying to get onto the front foot of history (Facebook)
- the European Union applying old laws to new problems (Google fines)
Each is a new variety of action where Silicon Valley is concerned. And I suspect we will see many more of these kinds of extreme reactions, as we try to deal with situations for which law (any country´s) has not yet been drafted.
We are currently still in the Wild West with emerging technologies: We have robust sales of snake-oil, bold promises of wide vistas of open prairie for the brave few who make the journey, and lots of peril. Eventually, there will be proper law. But I believe the pace at which it´s required versus being made will force more action along the lines of the non-renewal of Uber´s London licence. If mayors in the US can defy Mr Trump´s Paris Treaty withdrawal, why not take things further? There are 39 mega-cities on our planet (populations of greater than 10 million people) with a prediction that this will grow to 41 by 2030. The powers these megalopoli will wield by virtue of their populations will allow them to bypass the usual order of things, in the way TfL (with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan´s approval and support) has done this past week. It was this sort of lawless lawfulness that Hollywood tells us brought law and order to the wild-west: Sheriffs riding into town and putting on that star.
Whether you agree with the banning of Uber or not, a lot of Silicon Valley will just have sat up and noticed. I suspect TfL may have started a new fashion and that we will see more large city mayors flexing their muscles to ensure their cities are run in a way that is concordant with citizen sentiment. The Brookings Institute made a few good points about mayoral power in an article earlier this year. They end the piece with this opinion: “Regardless of the outcome of these contests, the forces driving the devolution agenda from the top down and the ground up are very likely here to stay. Cities and metropolitan regions will continue to seek greater power and control over policies and development decisions that will shape their future.”
I think a new sheriff rode into town this week.