The 24th Civil Court of Bogotá has rejected a motion filed by Comunicación Tech y Transporte (Cotech), a company that supports Taxis Libres, aimed at restricting internet access for transportation apps such as Cabify, DiDi, Indriver, and Uber.
Cotech had taken legal action against the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications (MinTIC) and the Ministry of Transportation. They requested that internet providers, including Claro, WOM, Movistar, and Tigo, be prohibited from offering connectivity services to these platforms.
The company argued that these applications illegally promote and provide passenger transport with private vehicles, thus harming their business operations. Cotech claimed that these tech platforms do not meet government regulations, which leads to an increase in traffic and has a detrimental impact on the environment. Additionally, they stated that the absence of fare regulations disadvantages legally established companies that comply with existing laws.
However, the court ruled that Cotech failed to demonstrate any fundamental rights violations. The judge clarified that “there was no preliminary evidence of irreparable harm warranting constitutional intervention.” The court noted that Cotech’s assertions were largely unsubstantiated assertions rather than fact-based claims.
This ruling comes amid ongoing tensions between traditional taxi drivers and digital transportation platforms in Bogotá. On the same day, taxi drivers suspended a strike that had paralyzed various parts of the city, causing significant disruptions in mobility. Mayor Carlos Fernando Galán has been in discussions with industry leaders to find a resolution to the conflict.
Companies like Maximobility S.A.S (Cabify) and Indriver defended their operations, asserting they comply with current legislation, particularly Law 1450 of 2011. MinTIC also stated that Cotech’s lawsuit was inappropriate, claiming that all available mechanisms to address the issue must be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention.
Regarding the administration of justice, the judge highlighted that “the plaintiff did not present arguments showing that the fundamental right to judicial administration was affected.” This decision reinforces the notion that the judicial process is not the appropriate venue for resolving commercial disputes between competitors, especially when no significant harm to the plaintiff’s rights is evident.
These court decisions emphasize the ongoing legal tensions regarding the operation of mobility applications in Colombia. Despite the controversies, these technological platforms remain a popular choice for many citizens looking for transportation options.
The debate surrounding the legality and regulation of transportation apps continues to be a relevant issue. While these applications are legally permitted, the provision of transportation services using private vehicles remains a grey area under current legislation. The regulation remains partially addressed, allowing the platforms to operate while restricting rides in private vehicles.
In addition to the ongoing dispute with transportation platforms, taxi leaders reported intimidation from a group of motorcyclists involved in informal transportation. Hugo Ospina, a leader within the taxi community, declared that “there is a group of ‘picapminosos’ (motorcycle messengers) who have formed a self-defense group to harass and demean our officials.”
This situation illustrates the complex landscape of transportation in Colombia, where traditional services and technological solutions are often at odds. The ruling from the 24th Civil Court of Bogotá represents another significant moment in this ongoing dispute, highlighting the critical need for clear and fair regulations for all participants in the passenger transport sector.
Image and News Source: https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2024/07/25/juzgado-de-bogota-nego-tutela-que-buscaba-dejar-sin-internet-a-apps-de-transporte/
