What do you think about how Uber has acted with regulators thus far? Could Uber have improved its business position by taking a different stance? Should Uber change its stance towards regulators as its model becomes more universally accepted?

There are several number of instances which proved what has been violated against the rules and regulation of the transportation industry. According to a recent instance, Dutch Data Protection authority (Dutch DPA) has imposed a £600000 fine open Uber for violating the obligation related to data breach notification. The case reveals that hackers have breached the data of Uber drivers and Uber users from Netherland to United States, which violates privacy of the 57 million people. The breached data includes names, telephone number and email address of the individuals. Similarly, the reports of Transport for London reveals that Uber does not fit to the country compliance and regulations of United States. Uber failed to fulfil the corporate responsibility which is primarily due to lax background check of drivers. In August 2016 Newark cab and taxi owner association filled a federal case against Newark city stating that Uber has violated constitutional rights which involves $10 million deal. According to Takings and equal protection clauses of US Constitution Uber needs to purchase $500,000 licenses for the Uber cars (Weiling, 2018). Likewise, Taxi and limousine commission (TLC) argues that both workers and other taxes should be regulated under the same policies and laws. After deducting the maintenance cost, commission fees and Uber booking fees from the ride fare, the Uber driver are left with only $9.21 per hour. This $9.21 of the driver per hour wage is less than $10 in accordance to the local minimum wage laws. The low wage policy of uber corresponds to high turnover rate of its drivers. It is evident that more than 800,000 people join as Uber driver in a year and then they last for maximum of 3 months of period (Shaikh, & Sia, 2018). Thus, Uber's action of undercutting fares, ignoring drivers' demands and increasing commissions represent them as shadowy, money-minded and policy breaker. Drivers have conducted many protests and lawsuits against this ride hail company, which all went in vain.

Despite of being having an outstanding business model Uber has faced in negative image and controversies in the market. It has been major reason for the downfall of Taxicab industry and the first preferences for all types of passengers. Regardless of all these, Uber has to deal questions regarding legality company ethics and social cost. For this reason Uber has been banned in Denmark, Australia (North territory), China, London and Bulgaria In order to avoid synonymous with bad PR Uber could have implement some different business strategies. Uber good hire external agencies for background checks diverse and fingerprint check to boost the nation's safety measures. The drivers who has received a permit to pick passengers from airport should be subjected to additional background checks as well as fingerprint test for confirming their identities. In addition to this would have to also value its drivers as much as the passengers. In this regard Uber should lower its commission rate from 30% to 15% (Collier, Dubal, & Carter, 2018). Orelse it can offer the drivers with a tiered system which allows them to take one more ride per day and it will not be accountable into Ubers record. Further, it should also be involved into social insurance program like insurance and compensation for workers. Moreover, to prevent any breach activity and guarantee privacy level, the passengers should have complete control over their personal data. This could be implemented through privacy mantra like "private rides" where the company cannot access to the passenger's data unless there is an emergency. In addition to this the permitting and public safety rules which is designed for all worldwide ride-hailing companies. Lastly, Uber should be abide by the tax authorities to pay both state tax as well as foreign tax (O'Brien, Black, Devine, & Griffin, 2018).