AICM, Uber Clash as Airport Ride Enforcement Tightens

AICM has launched new enforcement actions against app-based rides, while Uber says that a federal judicial order protects its drivers from arbitrary sanctions. The clash highlights a growing regulatory battle over who can legally operate in Mexico’s airport federal zones.  

Mexico’s dispute over app-based ride services at airports escalated this week after the Mexico City International Airport (AICM) confirmed new National Guard operations to curb what authorities describe as “irregular transportation services.” Uber argued that a federal judicial order protects drivers from arbitrary detentions and sanctions tied solely to the use of its platform.

The latest enforcement push was made public through an AICM post on X, stating that  beginning March 12, operations involving the National Guard would be reinforced as part of interinstitutional coordination led by Grupo Aeroportuario Marina. According to the airport’s message, the objective is to inhibit irregular ground transportation services and strengthen user safety within the legal framework.

That announcement followed a March 10 meeting between Grupo Aeroportuario Marina and the 11 taxi groups authorized to provide service at AICM. In its official bulletin, the airport operator said the meeting introduced new measures for terrestrial transport, including the start of National Guard operations, relocation of taxi staging areas and sales points, and a reiteration that app-based taxi services are not authorized to operate in the airport’s federal zone.

Uber responded on March 11 through an official post on its Mexico blog, where it said a federal judge granted a definitive suspension within Stay of Proceedings 1202/2025. According to the company, that measure means authorities must refrain from imposing sanctions, immobilizing vehicles or carrying out detentions based only on the fact that a driver is using the Uber app for trips to or from airports. Uber also said the judge later determined that authorities had failed to comply with that suspension.

The federal government rejected Uber’s interpretation in the SICT’s “Uber Informational Note” published March 11. The ministry stated that Uber does not have authorization to provide service within the perimeter of AICM or other airports in the country; it argued that the judicial measure cited by the company does not amount to an operating permit. In practice, the government’s position is that the ruling may protect against arbitrary enforcement, but it does not legalize airport operations by ride-hailing platforms.

That distinction now sits at the center of the conflict. Uber is framing the issue around due process, non-discriminatory treatment, and legal certainty for drivers and users. Airport and federal authorities, meanwhile, are treating it as a regulatory matter involving federally controlled space where only authorized transport services may operate.

AICM’s measures came after direct engagement with concessioned taxi groups, underscoring persistent tension between incumbent airport operators and digital mobility platforms over access to one of the country’s most important transport hubs. As Mexico moves closer to the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the issue is likely to gain even more visibility, given the expected rise in airport passenger flows and scrutiny over ground transportation options for international visitors.