This paper provides an overview of judicial decisions on lawsuits against regulatory penalties imposed on nonprofessional taxi drivers and ride-hailing platform operators in China and the European Union (especially Germany). Despite strikingly different facts in these cases, courts in both China and the EU are frequently called upon to rule on similar legal issues, including the applicability of old regulatory rules to new forms of transport services, the regulatory bar for the operation of emerging transport models, and the proper intensity of competition in taxi markets. The comparison of such cases suggests that for deciding the regulatory schemes of the innovative economy of transport services, the judicial system is not better suited than the regulatory system, especially the regulatory authority of the central government. Moreover, an experimental regulatory approach with minimum standards is arguably a feasible option that can fit with the emerging nature of innovative businesses.
Critical Legal Scholarship was first introduced to Chinese legal academia in late 1980’s, and gained great attentions in the following decade. Later on, however, Chinese jurists showed little interest in exploring more of Critical Legal Scholarship because of their oversimplification of Critical Legal Scholars as indeterminists, deconstructionists, extremists and nihilists. This article points out the typical, gross misconceptions of Chinese jurists to Critical Legal Scholarship, and explores the reasons of such misconceptions. The author of this article hopes that his representation of Critical Legal Scholarship would help to reopen the door for further communications between the Critical Legal Scholarship and their audiences in China. Remarks on how to approach Critical Legal Scholarship further from a Chinese perspective are provided at the end of this article.