On the 8th of May, 2019, in the case “Municipalidad de Córdoba c/ Uber y otros- Amparo (Ley 5125)”, File No. 870901, Córdoba’s Administrative Litigation Court understood that: (i) Ordinance 12.859 does not regulate Uber’s services, but rather similar services like taxi services, remis (private taxi) services, and luxury car rentals; (ii) Uber is not a public service, but a private service, which is governed by the Commercial and Civil Code of the Nation; (iii) the lack of regulations does not equate to a prohibition of the service, and the Municipality cannot “rely” on its failure to regulate (in fact, the court ordered it to enact regulation within 30 days); (iv) a de facto ban on Uber, as attempted by the Municipality, constitutes a violation of basic human rights by prohibiting a lawful and legal activity. de facto, como pretende hacer la municipalidad, viola derechos humanos básicos al proscribir una actividad lícita y legal.