There was a time when Uber was synonymous with freedom, efficiency, and a slap in the face to the monopoly of traditional taxis. In Uruguay, when the app arrived in 2015, it promised a fast, reliable, and affordable service, all from the palm of your hand.
However today in 2025, the liberal dream of a dynamic and competitive market has crashed against the wall of state bureaucracy and stifling regulations.
Uber's service in Uruguay has not only lost its shine but has become a caricature of what it once was: cars no longer as clean, endless wait times, and fares that make one nostalgically look back at the taximeters of yesteryear.
The Debate: The Arrival of Uber
Meanwhile, the taxi drivers, backed by their unions, with Oscar Dourado at the helm, protested vigorously, arguing that Uber represented unfair competition by operating without the licenses and regulations they had to comply with, leading to mobilizations and calls for prohibition.
Then, given the established public debate, the Montevideo City Council, caught between the pressure of taxi drivers and consumer demand, opted for the "country of the tie" and took a regulatory approach to balance the forces, although the loser in a negotiation is always the one not at the table, in this case, the consumer.
The IMM imposed restrictions, such as the requirement for specific permits and limits on the number of drivers, which created tensions with Uber, which defended its free-market model. This debate reflected a broader struggle between technological innovation and established interests, marking the beginning of a regulatory process that, according to critics, ended up affecting the quality and prices of the service in the following years.
You might also be interested in: Casmu Saved
The Decline in Quality: From Excellence to Mediocrity
In its early days, Uber was a revolution. Drivers rated by users, impeccable vehicles, and an app that made ordering a ride as easy as sending a WhatsApp.
Personally, given the prices, I had many rides in 2016 and took the opportunity to chat with the drivers and was interested in how they were doing. None were dissatisfied, some said "it works for me" "it's an extra" and most "it's very good for me."
Happy users, happy workers. What happened then? The State and the businessmen lost, so under the mantra of "safety," it began through its claws, added to business and union lobbying, to meddle "to provide safety for all."
From there, everything changed. User testimonials are unanimous: the cars are no longer as clean, the drivers seem less capable, and wait times have skyrocketed. Coincidence? No. Since the Montevideo City Council decided to freeze the incorporation of new permit holders in 2018, the supply of drivers has stagnated.
According to a report by El Observador, many of the original permit holders no longer drive, leaving a vehicle deficit that is not replenished. The result: fewer cars available, more delays, and drivers who, knowing that demand exceeds supply, allow themselves to be less alert. The country of the tie won again, but there were no ties, there were winners: the State, the businessmen, and there were losers: the user.
Then, regulation, disguised as "consumer protection," has created an artificial bottleneck. In a free market, competition would have forced drivers to maintain high standards to avoid losing customers to others willing to offer better service. But with a limited number of permits, the incentive to improve disappears. Why clean the car or be punctual if you're going to have passengers anyway? The user, trapped in a system where there are no alternatives, ends up paying the price for this imposed mediocrity.
