di Paolo Bricco

L’Ilva colpisce al cuore, economico e giuridico, il nostro Paese. Ed esprime due verità amare. Prima verità: l’Italia ha necessità dell’acciaio prodotto a Taranto. Dunque, una soluzione industriale va trovata. E bene fa Renzi a gestire in prima persona il dossier. Seconda verità: lo Stato Imprenditore non ha dato buone prove, nel nostro Paese, ed è una opzione culturale che non ci appassiona. L’auspicio è che l’ansia di evitare il collasso non faccia cadere il Governo in tentazioni neo-stataliste. Per questo, non si può essere favorevoli alla nazionalizzazione tout court. Nazionalizzazione che è una pratica estrema, da non confondere con il mix ben temperato – anche con dosi massicce – di politiche industriali pubbliche e di concorrenza privata. La quale sarà pure la peggiore forma di ingegneria delle istituzioni economiche. A parte, però, tutte le altre. L’Italia, peraltro, ha bisogno che il profilo della sua cultura giuridica non sia sbrecciato e divelto da soluzioni di emergenza che, ricorrendo in misura eccessiva a strumenti pervasivi come la Legge Marzano, minino i meccanismi di funzionamento del mercato e i principi basilari del diritto a partire dalla proprietà privata. Nessuno chiede sanatorie extra-giudiziali.

Nessuno auspica sconti in tribunale. Ognuno dovrà rispondere – fra i proprietari e gli amministratori locali, i politici e i sindacalisti – di quanto ha fatto, negli ultimi vent’anni, fra Taranto e Roma. E nessuno vuole sottacere le responsabilità della famiglia Riva, che andranno ovviamente verificate e giudiziariamente accertate. Resta, però, il fatto che il contesto giuridico è segnato da un profluvio di leggi speciali che ha creato una sedimentazione gelatinosa, che ormai ricopre il sistema economico italiano e su cui difficilmente gli investitori stranieri avranno un gran piacere di mettere i loro piedi (e di puntare i loro soldi). Adesso, nell’ultima ipotesi di salvataggio ventilata dal Governo, c’è appunto un uno-due che rischia di colpire al mento l’Ilva e di fare barcollare contestualmente l’intero sistema economico: il default pilotato, con il fallimento sostanziale e l’applicazione della legge Marzano.
L’Italia deve dimostrare di sapere gestire problemi complessi, in cui le componenti industriali e finanziarie, politiche e sociali, giudiziarie e di policy si trasformano in un unicum indistricabile.

L’Ilva è uno di questi.  La Legge Marzano non può diventare lo strumento con cui gestire queste complessità. In questo caso specifico, l’Ilva è stata gestita dai legittimi proprietari, i Riva, con efficienza. Non ha mai perso soldi. Gli utili, dal 1995, sono sempre stati reinvestiti nell’impresa. L’impianto, il maggiore d’Europa, ha avuto livelli di produttività industriale pari o superiori agli standard tedeschi. I problemi ambientali – quelli reali e quelli percepiti, quelli della verità storica e quelli della verità giudiziaria – hanno portato a un commissariamento che, in maniera graduale ma inesorabile, si è trasformato nei fatti in una cancellazione sostanziale dei diritti di proprietà. Un percorso accidentato, in cui molti principi del diritto liberale e del funzionamento dell’economia di mercato sono stati poco alla volta compromessi. Adesso, il paradosso finale: lo Stato ha commissariato l’azienda, l’ha gestita bruciando qualcosa come 2,5 miliardi di euro di capitale netto in poco meno di due anni e mezzo, ha deciso di venderla come fosse una impresa sua e non di imprenditori privati e adesso, dato che la fabbrica perde a bocca di barile, pensa – fra le ipotesi ventilate – di chiederne l’amministrazione straordinaria attribuendo alla Marzano una centralità che ha già avuto nel caso Parmalat, nel 2003, e nel caso Alitalia nel 2008.

Nel paradosso Ilva, dunque, adesso c’è il rischio – come può capitare con la Marzano – di uno spossessamento della proprietà. L’Ilva rischia, infatti, di sperimentare una insolvenza, originatasi nella miscela di provvedimenti giudiziari e di atti di Governo. In conseguenza dell’amministrazione straordinaria, la società potrebbe diventare un asset che viene utilizzato per soddisfare i creditori o potrebbe diventare un asset con cui alimentare la distinzione fra bad company e good company. Nel caso specifico, dunque, verrebbe così sancito formalmente l’“esproprio” che la famiglia proprietaria ha già subito nei fatti. Sul processo ambientale di Taranto, i Riva peraltro non solo non hanno subito una condanna, ma nemmeno sono stati rinviati ancora a giudizio. Dunque, non appare corretto che passi il principio di uno “spossessamento” attuato da uno Stato che ha già mandato in tilt finanziario una impresa che, a sua volta, si è brutalmente incartata – in questi due anni e mezzo – nei meandri di un procedimento giudiziario. Così come è, invece, corretto che si accertino, nelle sedi opportune, tutte le responsabilità che riguardano la vitale questione ambientale. Naturalmente, in questo quadro, è bene che il Governo sostenga l’irrinunciabilità dell’Ilva. La sensibilità evidenziata da Renzi verso questa architrave della nostra manifattura mostra la sua consapevolezza che, senza l’acciaio prodotto a Taranto, la fisiologia economica italiana diventerebbe più gracile e ancora più esposta alla dipendenza dalle forniture straniere. Serve, in questa fase, equilibrio. Viviamo tempi difficili. Ci sono soggetti pubblici di diritto privato, investitori industriali esteri e italiani. Strumenti adeguati di mercato esistono: nella partita Ilva ci sono e appaiono disponibili. Possono essere le tessere di un mosaico articolato e complesso. Il mosaico dell’industria italiana prossima ventura.

di Roberto Mania

C’è un “piano B” per l’Ilva. Il governo è pronto a chiedere l’amministrazione straordinaria per il gruppo siderurgico. Sostanzialmente dichiararne il fallimento e applicare la legge Marzano, il nostro “Chapter 11″, riservato ai grandi gruppi con più di 500 addetti e oltre 300 milioni di debiti. Un default pilotato, insomma. Un decreto legge ad hoc potrebbe essere varato nei prossimi giorni, o addirittura questa sera visto che è stata convocata una riunione del Consiglio dei ministri. I tempi saranno comunque strettissimi. L’Ilva, dopo che le sono arrivati i 125 milioni della seconda rata del prestito bancario, ha i soldi per pagare gli stipendi dei suoi 11 mila dipendenti di dicembre, la tredicesima e il rateo del premio di produzione. Niente di più. Mentre ci sono 350 milioni di debiti scaduti con i fornitori e 35 miliardi di richieste per danni ambientali, sotto varie forme, da parte della comunità tarantina.

Nessuno in queste condizioni comprerà mai la società. Non gli anglo-indiani di Arcelor-Mittal, il più grande gruppo europeo dell’acciaio, alleati con Marcegaglia; non l’italiano Arvedi che in ogni caso ha chiesto l’aiuto finanziario del Fondo strategico italiano, braccio industriale della Cassa depositi e prestiti, controllata dal ministero dell’Economia con la partecipazione delle Fondazioni di origine bancaria. Sia Mittal sia Arvedi, infatti, hanno presentato offerte considerate inaccettabili dal governo. Ma in particolare gli anglo-indiani hanno posto paletti insormontabili dal punto di vista economico e politico. Così non ci sarebbero garanzie sul futuro dell’impianto. “Non si svende la più grande acciaieria d’Europa”, spiegano a Palazzo Chigi. La produzione dell’acciaio resta strategica se si vuole rilanciare l’attività industriale crollata del 25 per cento in questi lunghi anni di recessione. Da qui il “piano B” del governo.

Giovedì scorso si sono riuniti a Palazzo Chigi il premier, Matteo Renzi, il ministro dello Sviluppo economico, Federica Guidi, e il commissario governativo dell’Ilva, Piero Gnudi. Ne è emersa la convinzione che senza il passaggio all’amministrazione straordinaria la questione Ilva sia destinata a finire in un vicolo cieco. Con il rischio che prenda forma uno scenario sociale esplosivo, per le ricadute dirette su Taranto e gli altri siti produttivi (Novi Ligure e Cornigliano) e indirette sulle migliaia di piccole aziende fornitrici. Non per nulla ieri sono arrivati i commenti positivi dei sindacati all’ipotesi dell’amministrazione straordinaria.

D’altra parte né Mittal, né tantomeno i lombardi di Arvedi, significativamente indebitati, hanno indicato nell’offerta una cifra per rilevare la società. Questo è il punto. L’Ilva continua a perdere intorno ai 25 milioni al mese (ne perdeva quasi 70 prima dell’arrivo di Gnudi che ha cambiato tutta la prima linea di comando), nel 2012 e 2013 ha perso un miliardo l’anno, ha due terzi dello stabilimento di Taranto sotto sequestro, non ha praticamente le risorse per fare la manutenzione, e soprattutto deve rispettare i vincoli posti dal piano di risanamento ambientale che complessivamente richiedono un esborso di 1,8 miliardi di euro. Così i grandi acciaieri europei scommettono sul tracollo dell’Ilva, perché ci sarebbe un concorrente in meno e quote da spartirsi, mentre sui mercati globali avanzano i produttori asiatici, russi e brasiliani. Anche questa partita si sta giocando intorno alla crisi dell’ex Italsider. Eppure a Taranto si potrebbe ancora produrre acciaio di qualità in condizioni redditizie purché liberi del “fardello” del passato. L’amministrazione straordinaria servirebbe a questo, a non cedere l’azienda, bensì gli impianti. Il modello di riferimento sarebbe quello dell’Alitalia dei cosiddetti “capitani coraggiosi”: una bad company su cui scaricare il cumulo di macerie, controversie giudiziarie comprese, accumulato negli anni (ai Riva, azionisti di maggioranza, sono stati sequestrati dalla magistratura 1,2 miliardi di euro per dirottarli al risanamento ambientale); una new company sulla quale costruire il futuro dell’acciaieria, con le banche creditrici, con nuovi soci privati, con un intervento pubblico attraverso il Fondo strategico. Una volta ripulita, insomma, l’Ilva avrebbe ben altro appeal. E allora non si tratterebbe più di “svendita” e potrebbe – a condizioni di mercato sulle quali Bruxelles non potrebbe eccepire sollevando il pericolo di aiuti di Stato vietati dai Trattati – entrare in campo anche una sorta di statalizzazione. Ipotesi che il Renzi, nell’intervista ieri a Repubblica, considera al pari delle altre. Questa, potrebbe anche essere un’ipotesi tattica (dove troverebbe i soldi, non meno di 2-3 miliardi, il governo?) per far vedere a Mittal che lo scenario può anche cambiare. Ma si vedrà. In ogni caso il ricorso alla “legge Marzano” dovrebbe permettere – secondo quanto è trapelato da chi nel governo ha in mano il dossier – al commissario straordinario di venire in possesso in tempi rapidi dei 1,2 miliardi sequestrati ad Emilio Riva e sul cui patrimonio c’è stata la rinuncia degli eredi. Certo il fratello Adriano ha fatto ricorso contro il sequestro ed è in atto una battaglia legale. Ma questo è un altro capitolo del groviglio tarantino.

von Reinhard Müller

Zerschlagt Google? In der unverbindlichen Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments mag Vieles zusammenkommen: vom Antiamerikanismus über den Lobbyismus bis zum Unbehagen über neue Technologien in einer sich schnell verändernden Welt.

Aber dass die Macht des amerikanischen Konzerns, der viel mehr ist als eine exzellente Suchmaschine, ein Thema für die Politik ist, sollte auch jenseits des Atlantiks jedem klar sein. Die Kontrolle allzu großer Marktmacht ist selbstverständlicher Teil jeder marktwirtschaftlichen Ordnung: nicht um Erfolg zu bestrafen, sondern fairen Wettbewerb zu ermöglichen. Da geht es etwa um den Vorwurf, Google manipuliere Suchergebnisse zugunsten seiner eigenen Dienstleister.

Die wahre Macht von Giganten wie Google und Apple erschließt sich erst auf den zweiten Blick. Die zahllosen Nutzer zahlen mit ihren Daten. Über diese Daten verfügt der Konzern, auch wenn er versichert, mit ihnen keinen Handel zu treiben. Und die Daten sind wertvoll, etwa für die NSA. Über deren Kontrolle wird geredet. Das muss erst recht für Google gelten.

by Tim Bradshaw and Hannah Kuchler

Uber has moved to head off further criticism about how it handles the huge trove of personal data that it holds on its customers’ locations and trips, after facing questions over how its employees access individuals’ information.
Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, sparked controversy this week after he was quoted as saying that the company should consider hiring private investigators to launch a smear campaign against critical journalists.

The comments were first reported by Buzzfeed, which also alleged that an Uber manager had accessed one of its journalist’s customer profiles on the car-hailing service, without her permission.

Other reporters have also voiced concerns that they could be targeted based on their usage of the app.

“Several Uber employees have warned me that Uber execs might look into my travel logs,” said Ellen Cushing, a reporter for San Francisco magazine, who wrote a recent profile of Uber.

In a blogpost, Uber played down those allegations, which could see the company – recently valued at $17bn and currently in talks to raise more than $1bn in new funding – run foul of data protection laws.

“Uber has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data,” the company said on Tuesday afternoon. “The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors.”

Some examples of “legitimate” uses include responding to customer service inquiries, fraud monitoring and troubleshooting technical bugs, Uber’s blogpost said.

Uber’s privacy policy states that the company “may use your personal information or usage information that we collect about you” for unspecified “internal business purposes” and “inclusion in our data analytics”.

Even after a customer cancels their account, their location and trip history data can be stored “as needed” for legal, security or operational purposes, Uber’s privacy policy says.

Two months ago, attention was drawn to Uber’s ability to zoom in on individual customers’ activity by Peter Sims, a San Francisco-based author and former venture capitalist, who discovered that his Uber ride across Manhattan had been watched simultaneously on a map at a company launch event in Chicago.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a31f6b60-6f8a-11e4-b50f-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3KpA65FRx

ft.com > companies >
Technology
Search
Sign in Register Subscribe

Home World Companies
Energy
Financials
Health
Industrials
Luxury 360
Media
Retail & Consumer
Tech
Telecoms
Transport
By Region
Tools
Markets Global Economy Lex Comment Management Life & Arts
November 19, 2014 2:05 am
Uber tries to head off privacy criticism
Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco and Hannah Kuchler in New York

Uber Technologies Inc. signage stands inside the company’s office©Bloomberg
Uber has moved to head off further criticism about how it handles the huge trove of personal data that it holds on its customers’ locations and trips, after facing questions over how its employees access individuals’ information.
Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, sparked controversy this week after he was quoted as saying that the company should consider hiring private investigators to launch a smear campaign against critical journalists.
More
ON THIS STORY
Lex Startups – Uber and out
John Gapper Uber should just do nothing
Uber seeks boost from Washington recruits
Uber offers perks to US drivers
Uber chief on the defensive over ethics
ON THIS TOPIC
Goldman clients offered debt in Uber
Uber forced to stop operating in Nevada
Uber struggles to get back on right road
Slideshow Uber’s bumpy road
IN TECHNOLOGY
Speaker maker Sonos raises $130m
Twitter tightens anti-abuse measures
Xiaomi invests in Silicon Valley start-up
Hawking warns on rise of the machines
Sign up now

firstFT
FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
The comments were first reported by Buzzfeed, which also alleged that an Uber manager had accessed one of its journalist’s customer profiles on the car-hailing service, without her permission.
Other reporters have also voiced concerns that they could be targeted based on their usage of the app.
“Several Uber employees have warned me that Uber execs might look into my travel logs,” said Ellen Cushing, a reporter for San Francisco magazine, who wrote a recent profile of Uber.
In a blogpost, Uber played down those allegations, which could see the company – recently valued at $17bn and currently in talks to raise more than $1bn in new funding – run foul of data protection laws.
“Uber has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data,” the company said on Tuesday afternoon. “The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors.”
Some examples of “legitimate” uses include responding to customer service inquiries, fraud monitoring and troubleshooting technical bugs, Uber’s blogpost said.
Uber’s privacy policy states that the company “may use your personal information or usage information that we collect about you” for unspecified “internal business purposes” and “inclusion in our data analytics”.
Even after a customer cancels their account, their location and trip history data can be stored “as needed” for legal, security or operational purposes, Uber’s privacy policy says.
Two months ago, attention was drawn to Uber’s ability to zoom in on individual customers’ activity by Peter Sims, a San Francisco-based author and former venture capitalist, who discovered that his Uber ride across Manhattan had been watched simultaneously on a map at a company launch event in Chicago.

“I’ve given up on being able to trust the company,” Mr Sims wrote in a widely circulated blogpost this September about the alleged incident, which he said happened in 2011.

Uber has tried to quell growing discontent among some reporters and customers in the aftermath of Mr Michael’s comments, which are just the latest in a string of incidents that has prompted criticism of its corporate ethics.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Tuesday, David Plouffe, Uber’s senior vice-president of policy and strategy, said the company had a “great story to tell” about creating jobs, reducing drink driving and improving cities’ transportation.

“That’s where we need our focus to be in terms of talking about our company,” he said. “The less we get in our own way, the better off we’ll be.”

Nonetheless, some security analysts remain concerned about how Uber stores and uses information on its millions of customers, many of whom use the app several times a month to travel to or from their homes.

Davi Ottenheimer, senior director of trust at EMC, the IT firm, and an expert in encryption, said Uber had a “huge metadata issue” as it could see who moved where and when.

“You don’t realise when you step into that car that they are looking at everything – I mean everything, building profiles of you,” he said. Even though the data are officially “anonymous”, if an Uber user frequently goes to the same address, such as their home or office, they could be identified based on that information, he added.

“I don’t think anybody realises that we’re far away from an app that gives you privacy in a way that taxis give you your privacy,” he said.

Describing the Uber screens that show cars moving around a live map, he said: “They call it the ‘God view’ . . . They think they are God.”

Jean-Claude Juncker has not had an easy start as European Commission president. When he was nominated five months ago, a handful of EU leaders raised questions about the ability of the former Luxembourg prime minister to meet the demand of many Europeans that the EU must change. Now he is being forced to fend off criticism over the way the Grand Duchy became a tax haven for leading multinationals during his long tenure as its premier and finance minister.
Luxembourg’s status as a tax shelter may not be news. But Mr Juncker’s role in the Grand Duchy’s tax dealings has been thrust into the spotlight following the leaking of a trove of documents revealing special tax arrangements between Luxembourg and 340 multinationals, including Pepsi, Ikea and JPMorgan. The files show how secret deals with Luxembourg between 2002 and 2010 saved these companies from paying billions of dollars in tax in countries where they do business.

These disclosures come at an embarrassing time for Mr Juncker. Across the EU, there is public indignation at the way multinationals have shuffled profits across borders to avoid paying tax. In the year before he took office, the commission responded by launching probes into companies suspected of benefiting from such arrangements – including at least two in Luxembourg, Amazon and Fiat’s financial arm.
Last weekend’s G20 summit highlighted the awkwardness of the situation. In Brisbane, Mr Juncker endorsed plans to crack down on multinational tax avoidance – including the introduction of transparency measures that he spent years blocking within the EU while running Luxembourg. The incongruity led one NGO to quip that putting him in charge of efforts to combat tax avoidance was like placing Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
Mr Juncker has been damaged by the scale of tax avoidance on his watch. These wounds need not be mortal. The commission president acknowledges that he was “politically responsible for what happened in each and every corner” of Luxembourg when premier. But he also insists that the tax authorities in the Grand Duchy were “autonomous.” No “smoking gun” has yet been produced showing he broke EU law.
Still, Mr Juncker must act to restore public confidence. As commission president, he oversees the officials investigating the tax incentives that Luxembourg offered to Amazon and Fiat. Their inquiries are examining whether those companies effectively received a form of illegal state aid.
Although Mr Juncker says he will allow these inquests to continue without hindrance under the new competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, he has so far refused to recuse himself formally from participating in the commission’s final judgments. Mr Juncker should think again. He should make a clean break and officially hand over all oversight for the probes to Frans Timmermans, his deputy.
Mr Juncker should also step back from involving himself as far as possible in policy discussions on tax transparency. The commissioner in charge of these matters is France’s Pierre Moscovici. Mr Juncker should let him take the lead on all matters relating to tax, including in forums such as the G20.
Mr Juncker has more than enough to do. He is leading a vital initiative to boost investment in the EU’s struggling economy. He needs time to settle into the job. Nonetheless, he should acknowledge Luxembourg’s increasingly toxic reputation within the EU for tax avoidance. Mr Juncker would enhance his authority if he were to put himself at arm’s length from the commission’s activities in this field.

by Tim Bradshaw

Uber’s combative chief Travis Kalanick has had to defend his company’s culture and ethics, after a senior executive at the driver-hailing service said it should consider hiring investigators to probe the “personal lives” of critical journalists.
The comments were made by Emil Michael, Uber’s senior vice-president of business, at a private dinner in New York and reported on Monday by a BuzzFeed journalist who attended the event.

Mr Kalanick called the remarks “terrible” and a “departure from our values” in a series of tweets on Tuesday, saying they did not represent the company.

The incident follows persistent criticism of Uber’s aggressive competitive tactics and use of “surge pricing” to raise fares during periods of high demand.

The latest controversy comes at a crucial time for the San Francisco-based company, as it embarks on its second round of fundraising in six months.

Uber hopes to raise more than $1bn at a valuation likely to exceed the $17bn achieved in its previous fundraising, people familiar with the deal have told the Financial Times.

Mr Michael did not deny the report in BuzzFeed, in which he was quoted as suggesting that Uber might spend “a million dollars” on opposition researchers to find information that might be used to discredit reporters who have criticised its corporate behaviour.

“The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner, borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for, do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach,” Mr Michael said in a statement provided by Uber. “They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them.”

Another attendee at the dinner, who asked not to be named, broadly confirmed to the Financial Times the exchange between Mr Michael and Ben Smith, BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief, who had earlier put a provocative question to Travis Kalanick, Uber chief executive.

Nairi Hourdajian, Uber’s communications chief, added: “We have not, do not and will not investigate journalists. Those remarks have no basis in the reality of our approach.”

Mr Kalanick said on Twitter on Tuesday that the comments put the “burden” on Uber to show its “constituents” that the company and its employees were “principled and mean well”.

“His remarks showed a lack of leadership, a lack of humanity, and a departure from our values and ideals,” Mr Kalanick said. “We are up to the challenge to show that Uber is and will continue to be a positive member of the community.”

However, Mr Kalanick indicated that Mr Michael would not lose his job over the incident. “I believe that folks who make mistakes can learn from them – myself included,” he said. “And that also goes for Emil.”

Uber has also denied allegations that the company has monitored the journeys made by reporters and other individuals using its service. Such a move would be against its privacy policy, Uber said, and likely be in breach of data protection laws.

Mr Michael’s suggestion of smearing reporters was largely directed at Sarah Lacy, founder and editor-in-chief of tech news site Pando, according to BuzzFeed. Ms Lacy, who has been a prominent critic of Uber and its executives, called his remarks “horrifying”.

Uber is no stranger to controversy, thanks to its regular tussles with regulators and taxi unions, and recent criticism of its tactics for poaching drivers from its main US rival Lyft.

This summer, Mr Kalanick hired David Plouffe, former presidential campaign manager for President Barack Obama, to help him fight what he has styled as a political battle against the taxi industry.

In a recent interview with Vanity Fair magazine, Mr Kalanick admitted to trying to disrupt Lyft’s fundraising efforts earlier this year by warning prospective investors that it planned to raise millions more soon after.

Fred Wilson, tech investor at Union Square Ventures and backer of rival taxi apps Hailo and Sidecar, said the tactic was “unethical and unsavoury”.

Lyft succeeded in raising $250m in April, while Uber went on to raise $1.2bn in June and is now seeking further funds.
But in recent interviews with the FT, Mr Kalanick has said that he feels Uber’s reputation as an aggressive operator is undeserved.

“I don’t subscribe to the idea that the company has an image problem,” Mr Plouffe told Vanity Fair. “I actually think when you are a disrupter you are going to have a lot of people throwing arrows.”