To denounce drug trafficking in Marseille, Gérald Darmanin used the expression “Uber Shit”, which refers to the famous meal delivery and VTC company. But is it really legal? A lawyer and the company give us their answers.
During his visit to Marseille on January 3, 2024, Gérald Darmanin made a notable outing by saying he wanted to launch major work on “Uber Shit”. To designate home drug delivery services which are done very naturally via encrypted messaging such as Telegram, the Minister of the Interior referred to the famous meal delivery and chauffeur-driven car delivery company. Can this statement not be considered defamation? We asked Uber directly, as well as a lawyer.
From Uber’s point of view: we deplore the expression used by Gérald Darmanin
In Marseille, more than 1,300 independent delivery people and 1,450 restaurants and businesses use the Uber Eats application. The term “Uber Shit” has emerged in public discourse to refer to the practice of delivering prohibited drugs directly to users’ homes. Little by little, they take the place of the places of dealing which can be unearthed and then dismantled by the police.
On Uber’s side, we refuse to talk about defamation. The company, contacted by Clubic this week, gave us its reaction: “ we deplore the use of the expression “Uber Shit” which risks generating a confusion that could affect independent delivery drivers who use our application. » The company, which recalls that it benefits from the trust of its delivery men, restaurateurs and merchants in Marseille, recalls that its application is “ exclusively dedicated to the delivery of meals and shopping “.
The speech may be surprising, but Uber does not seem to want to fall into one-upmanship. The company refuses to use the term “defamation” (although we directly asked the question in this sense), and therefore prefers to worry about the confusion that the population could make. What do lawyers think?
From a lawyer’s perspective: Uber is now a broader concept, and free speech must come first
The question therefore arises as to whether the formula used by the Minister of the Interior could constitute an act of defamation. Maître Constantin Pavléas, lawyer specializing in new technology law, recalls that “ The term “Uberization” has entered common parlance, describing an economic phenomenon where traditional market structures are disrupted and give way to new digital business models. The use of this word, derived from the company name Uber, has transcended its origin to embody a broader concept, often used in a legitimate critical context “.
The lawyer, who is based on the definition of defamation (allegation or imputation of a fact which harms the honor or consideration of a person or the body to which the fact is attributed) sacred by the law of July 29, 1881, tells us that “ If the term “Uber Shit” is used to undermine Uber’s reputation in an unjustified manner and without factual basis, it could be considered defamatory. » But is that really the case here?
“ It is up to the courts, in the event of a dispute, to decide whether in the specific cases, the use of derogatory terms such as “Uber Shit” specifically harms the reputation of the Uber company or whether it is part of the exercise of freedom of expression which is a fundamental right in any democratic regime. » For the lawyer, it is more « freedom of speech » which takes precedence here, which seems to be in line with what Uber says about this statement.
In addition to defamation, can the company Uber attack Gérald Darmanin on another ground?
Julie Prost, a lawyer from Impala Avocats, also specializing in the new technologies sector, whom we were able to contact, seems to agree with her colleague. “ Given that the expression is used by a minister and not a competing company, it is difficult to be able to attack on the grounds of denigration and unfair competition. As for defamation, the legal definition does not cover this situation. »
She nevertheless raises other arguments, such as trademark counterfeiting. “ We might eventually have to go into the area of trademark infringement because “Uber” is a registered trademark, even if we see that Uber’s defense strategy is much more watered down, with the company only calling for not to make any ‘amalgam. » American society therefore seems “condemned”, you will spare us the pun, to endure the situation and see its name trivialized, for better and for worse.
11