Drivers often ignore the legal framework, which has sparked public protests and formal complaints from users who depend on such animals for mobility.

One of the most recent cases was shared by Pedro Oliveira, a lawyer and researcher in Law. He is visually impaired and is always accompanied by his Labrador, Java.

In statements to SIC Notícias, the resident of Coimbra revealed that the obstacles to accessing the transport service have become routine when using the Uber platform.

"This has happened not once, not twice, not three times. It's a recurring situation," lamented the investigator.

Drivers behaviour

He described how the drivers' conduct often involves abandoning the pick-up location without any justification or, alternatively, immobilising the vehicle simply to communicate their express refusal to transport the animal.

The injured party emphasises that attempts to clarify the nature and legal obligation of transporting guide dogs with the service providers have proven fruitless. In most cases, the situation culminates in the driver unilaterally cancelling the ride.

This results in an immediate financial loss for the client due to the platform's automatic application and collection of a cancellation fee.

Feeling humiliated

Pedro Oliveira describes the experience as generating a profound "feeling of powerlessness" and "humiliation."

He argues that the companies that own the digital platforms fail to instruct their partners. He suggests that the application of severe contractual sanctions would be the only effective mechanism to stop the problem.

Portugal law

From a regulatory standpoint, refusing transport in these circumstances constitutes a direct violation of Portuguese law. The legal framework governing ride-hailing platforms and drivers is set out in Law No. 45/2018 of August 10.

It clearly stipulates that drivers are strictly obliged to transport guide dogs for visually impaired passengers. The article extends the same obligation to the transport of wheelchairs or other assistive walking devices for citizens with reduced mobility.

It explicitly safeguards that these trips cannot entail additional costs for the user. They also cannot be refused based on the passenger's physical condition, origin, or social status.

Given the recurrence of these incidents, guardians and associations defending the rights of people with disabilities have called for stricter oversight by competent authorities and for ride-hailing operators to review their customer service protocols.

Currently, the standard response from these companies to complaints has been to guarantee the blocking of future matching between the affected passenger and the driver in question. Users consider this solution insufficient. They demand exemplary punitive measures to ensure full compliance with current legislation.