Uber's recent exit from Tanzania is not an anomaly. It's a data point in a broader global trend: the unravelling of platform capitalism's most extractive instincts.
While Uber cites "overregulation" as the reason for its departure, this is a familiar narrative deployed whenever a jurisdiction demands that tech platforms comply with domestic laws, respect labour rights, or pay taxes. In truth, Uber's business model is under increasing scrutiny worldwide—and Tanzania is simply the latest country to push back.
From the UK to the EU, courts and regulators are asserting that Uber cannot disguise labour exploitation behind the language of innovation. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that Uber drivers are not independent contractors, but workers entitled to minimum wage and benefits. The EU Platform Work Directive, which comes into force this year, will impose algorithmic transparency and establish a presumption of employment when platforms exert control over workers. Tanzania's move to cap Uber's commission and standardize fares should be read as part of this same wave of regulatory maturity—not as protectionism, but as a defence of sovereignty and labour dignity.
The outcry over Tanzania's regulatory regime often overlooks the deeper asymmetry in the ride-hailing market. Global platforms like Uber operate through service agreements that avoid local incorporation, sidestep certain tax burdens, and externalize labour costs. Meanwhile, local startups must incorporate domestically, navigate multiple regulatory agencies, and comply with every tax and licensing obligation. The playing field is structurally uneven. In East Africa, Uber's user contracts were governed by Dutch law—an arrangement flagged by COMESA to avoid local consumer and labour protections. Regulatory intervention isn't just warranted; it's essential to restore market balance.
At the heart of this issue is Uber's insistence on a 25 percent commission structure—a margin difficult to justify in low-income economies. Tanzanian regulators, responding to pressure from drivers, cut the allowable commission to 15 percent. Uber left. It returned only after the ceiling was relaxed. Now it has exited again. The message is clear: without the ability to extract significant commissions from drivers while bearing minimal obligations to them, the model does not hold. And perhaps it shouldn't.
The "independent contractor" narrative collapses under scrutiny. Drivers cover fuel, maintenance, mobile data, and insurance. They work under algorithmic control, without real bargaining power. This is not entrepreneurship; it's a form of disguised employment designed to minimize corporate liability. In countries where millions live on less than $2 a day, such arrangements amount to economic precarity codified into digital platforms. The Human Rights Watch has documented how algorithmic opacity and misclassification harm gig workers globally. Tanzania's intervention should be seen not as anti-tech, but pro-labor.
This is a governance issue. In my past work facilitating stakeholder engagement on regulatory frameworks, I observed firsthand how governments struggle to regulate fast-moving digital economies without stifling innovation. The answer lies not in deregulation, but in adaptive regulation—one that demands transparency, fair taxation, and labor protections. Tanzania has every right to set terms that ensure its citizens are not collateral damage in the race for market share.
There is also a geopolitical dimension. Africa is no longer an experimental sandbox for foreign capital. The continent is asserting digital sovereignty. Whether on data protection, fintech, or ride-hailing, governments are erecting guardrails to ensure that technology serves the public good. Uber's exit from Tanzania mirrors its retreat from Côte d'Ivoire and mounting challenges in Kenya, Tunisia, and South Africa. This is not coincidence; it is structural resistance.
Foreign investors should take note: successful ventures in Africa will be those that respect local law, engage with regulators, and adapt to economic realities on the ground. That includes building within the local tax base, aligning with labor protections, and abandoning one-size-fits-all models designed for high-income economies. The future of digital business in Africa belongs to platforms that are embedded, accountable, and reciprocal.
Uber's departure is not a failure of Tanzania's regulatory environment. It is a failure of Uber's unwillingness to evolve. If a business model cannot function without exploiting labor or bypassing domestic institutions, then it is the model—not the market—that is broken.
Amne Suedi is Managing Director of Shikana Investment and Advisory, Honorary Consul of Switzerland to Tanzania, and Chair of the Switzerland-Tanzania Chamber of Commerce.
