21.9.2015

Disruptive Internet Services Face to Face With Finnish Law

New innovative internet services, like Uber and Airbnb, have triumphed in many countries and are now also finding their way into Finland. Although these services and the new business opportunities they bring have been given a warm welcome by many, the Finnish authorities and the more traditional industry players have been more reserved.

On the other hand, the renowned Bengt Holmström, Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has said that ‘the Internet, robots and the digitalisation of business are like laws of nature. Their development cannot be prevented. The more we deny new business models, the more we will fall behind’ [1]. Instead of being given the opportunity to flourish, these new services are sometimes seen as troublemakers, and seem to have hit a tightly knit web of laws and regulations hindering them in this country.

In this post we discuss two of these ‘new kids on the block’ and the legal hurdles they have found themselves facing in Finland.

Uber

Uber provides a service that connects customers in need of a ride with available drivers via a smartphone app. In Finland, this great innovation has faced strong opposition as the authorities have found it hard to fit Uber into the classic and heavily regulated taxi service model. 

As in some other countries, operating a taxi in Finland requires a license. Only a restricted number of taxi licenses are available, and room for newcomers is very limited. The problem with Uber appears to be that the Finnish authorities have a hard time establishing whether the service Uber provides is to be classified as operating a taxi and, therefore, requiring a license.

According to Uber itself, it is not a taxi service, but only provides a platform for ride sharing. Regardless of the ambiguity regarding the nature of Uber’s service, the Finnish Taxi Association has stated that drivers with a valid license have been urged to report Uber drivers to the authorities.

Lately even the Finnish police asked the public to report Uber drivers to the police. This is due to an ongoing investigation in which the authorities are trying to establish whether or not Uber is in breach of Finnish taxi legislation and driver safety requirements. Instead of actively rethinking the passenger transport business and considering the benefits of more flexible services, the authorities seem to be more willing to deny Uber’s business entirely.

Airbnb

Uber is not alone in its struggle with the tight web of Finnish laws and regulations. Airbnb, which provides an online platform for people to rent out properties to others in need of short-term accommodation, has also come under the all-seeing eye of the Finnish authorities, who see Airbnb’s operating model as some shade of grey in legal terms.

At the moment, the authorities are trying to decide whether it is a temporary rental to help offset vacation costs, whether it subletting or whether it is an accommodation business – all three possible interpretations are firmly regulated.

The Finnish Hospitality Association, MaRa, has demanded that the same tax liabilities and the numerous regulations that apply to other service providers in the accommodation business, such as hotels, should also apply to Airbnb. According to MaRa’s argument, Airbnb has an unfair competitive advantage otherwise.

In addition, residential buildings – generally organised in Finland as a special type of limited liability company that residents own shares in – are considering whether they could and should prohibit short-term rentals in their articles of association because of the possible disturbances travellers might cause.

These Services are Here to Stay

Digitalisation is not a new topic in Finland. Even the new government’s platform underlines the importance of digitalisation. However, new and innovative services are often not welcomed with open arms in practice.

Finns want these new services and the benefits they bring in terms of new business opportunities, cheaper consumer prices and more options to choose from. Keeping in mind the relative small size of the Finnish market, none of these benefits are self-evident and new business models enabling them should be encouraged rather than weeded out.

Indeed, instead of building legal barriers to their development, we should be breaking down old barriers and looking ahead. Fortunately Bengt Holmström sees that there is hope in Finland. As encouraging examples Holmström mentions software companies, the video game industry, Slush and the whole Finnish startup scene.

The best way to face the challenges of digitalisation is to actively take part in it and find new ways to support it instead of fighting against it.

[1] http://www.hs.fi/talous/a1439870365925  

Discussion in the Finnish Media

Uber:

Helsingin Sanomat: Poliisi kehottaa tekemään Uber-kuskeista ilmoituksen – “Akuutissa tilanteessa soitto hätäkeskukseen”

Iltalehti: Näinkö kohuyhtiö Uber ratkaisee kiistansa myös Suomessa? Haluaa eroon kuskeista

Nyt.fi: Call 911 if you see an Uber, Finnish police says

Edilex: Uber-kyytien välitys laillista, mutta ajaminen vaatii taksiluvan

Yle: Taxi Association demands Uber intervention

Yle: Taxi industry deregulation only a matter of time, says expert – even in Finland

Mtv3: Ministeriö: Uber-taksipalvelu ei voisi tulla Suomeen ainakaan heti

Airbnb:

Helsingin Sanomat: Vuokralaiset välittivät luvatta helsinkiläismiehen asuntoa kuukausia Airbnb-turisteille

Yle: Finland learning to live with Airbnb

Yle: Tuesday’s papers: Centre, Finns parties reach consensus, Airbnb headaches, online cellphone deal turns into knifepoint robbery

Iltasanomat: Airbnb:n toiminta Suomessa raivostuttaa: ”Täysin kestämätöntä”

MaRa: MaRa tekee yksityisiä majoituspalveluja koskevan lainsäädäntöaloitteen

Helsingin Sanomat: Alivuokrausta ei voi kieltää

Latest references

We advised WithSecure Corporation in the sale of its cybersecurity consulting business to Neqst. WithSecure is a global cyber security company (listed on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki). Neqst is a Swedish investment firm, focusing on technology companies. The closing of the transaction remains subject to customary conditions and regulatory approvals.
Case published 24.1.2025
We assisted Smarter Contracts Ltd in the process where the Finnish Transport and Communications Agency Traficom confirmed it to be an EU-recognised data intermediation service. Non-EU companies must have a legal representative in some EU country so that they can offer data intermediation services in accordance with the Data Governance Act. Smarter Contracts is based in Great Britain and selected Finland for the task. Smarter Contracts is the first non-EU data intermediation service registered by Traficom. Wayne Lloyd, Founder & CEO of Smarter Contracts, remarked:  The support from the Castrén team was exceptional from start to finish. Pioneering new territory is never without its challenges, and as the first non-EU data intermediation service provider, we faced significant legal uncertainties. Despite these complexities, the Castrén team expertly guided us through each step with remarkable efficiency, providing the certainty we needed. Smarter Contracts leverages its proprietary Pulse Permissions Protocol® to deliver advanced consent and access rights management services. This milestone highlights Castrén & Snellman’s proficiency in navigating intricate regulatory landscapes, whilst recognising the relevance of Smarter Contracts’ innovative approach to secure, compliant data management.
Case published 11.12.2024
We assisted Pharmaca Health Intelligence in its acquisition of Mediaattori Ltd’s PODIUM Connect® and PODIUM Visits businesses. Through the acquisition, Pharmaca Health Intelligence strengthens its extensive service offerings in medical information, data-driven management, and education for both healthcare and pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaca Health Intelligence is a pioneer in digital medical information and a reliable partner for wellbeing services counties, the private healthcare sector and pharmacies. The company invests in the development of technology and service solutions related to pharmaceutical information, also on an international scale.
Case published 5.12.2024
The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court has handed down decision KHO 2024:115 on balancing data protection and national security interests in cyber security incidents. We acted for the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in this precedent setting case, in which the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with our client’ core submissions and decided to overturn key parts of a data protection authority decision against our client. The court held that the Ministry had acted lawfully when taking a bit of time between discovering information about a cyber incident concerning certain diplomats and notifying all potentially affected people. The key point of principle for our client was the extent to which Article 34 of the GDPR requires such (essentially public) notifications when foreign policy and national security might require a more discrete initial approach. The court’s reasoning is important: since Finland has voluntarily, but not unreservedly, extended the scope of the GDPR to also cover foreign policy and national security, the primacy of EU law does not apply in that extended context. Thus, more specific local Finnish rules on freedom of information/confidentiality in these areas override the general Article 34 notification obligation (under the classic lex specialis derogat legi generali rule), even absent express statutory carve-outs to Article 34. Had Article 34 applied as a matter of EU law, the outcome could have been different, since the GDPR, under primacy, would override all local Finnish rules, irrespective of whether they are lex specialis or not. It’s important to understand why, and on what basis, an EU law applies to any given situation, since this could affect the principles of interpretation so much that the outcome changes significantly. The court did, however, hold that the Ministry will need to notify the DPA itself within the customary deadlines, since the DPA under Finnish law has the right to receive information confidentiality rules notwithstanding. We hope this outcome will contribute to authorities dealing with foreign policy and national security being able to balance all relevant interests going forward. Read the decision in Finnish or in Swedish .
Case published 15.11.2024