Hamburg tightens its course in the rental-car dispute — and is already looking ahead to robotaxis.

In a letter from the transport authority, the Hanseatic City defends this approach and at the same time relates it to nationwide political debates. Among other things, considerations of minimum transport fares (MBE), which are discussed in several countries as an instrument against aggressive pricing strategies of platform services.

Hamburg says that the previous demands seemed more programmatic than carefully implemented. There was a lack of a clear idea of who should monitor such minimum prices under real conditions, what resources would be needed, and what legal consequences violations would have. Also, from the administration's perspective, the economic impact remains open: a price below the taxi tariff does not necessarily have to lead to more stable market conditions.

The basic stance of the city remains unchanged. Only services whose legal and economic structure is considered viable are approved. Hamburg is particularly critical of models where the delineation from traditional taxi traffic blurs or where central responsibilities remain unclear.

Proceedings before the Administrative Court

Concretely, the consequences of this line will be argued before the Hamburg Administrative Court on June 12. Two refusals of applications for taxi-like rental cars will then be subject to review. The city justifies its decisions on several points. For one, in its view there is a lack of a robust demonstration of the financial capacity of the companies – and not only on a point-by-point basis, but also with regard to long-term viability.

Secondly, the authority sees that the so-called type-constraint of the Passenger Transport Act has been violated. The affected offerings showed too many features of classic taxi traffic, which is problematic under § 49(4) PBefG. The distinction between taxi and rental car would thus no longer be clearly defined.

Another point of contention concerns the corporate structure. Hamburg points to cases in which brokers or general contractors effectively assume the organization – up to pricing. In such constellations it is unclear who actually acts as the responsible operator within the meaning of the law.