California taxis sue Uber
Mar 19, 2015, 7:06 pm
#1
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,634
California taxis sue Uber
In the Los Angeles Times:
California taxis sue Uber, allege false advertising, unfair competition
Taxi drivers in California must submit to fingerprinting for criminal background checks. UberX drivers don't have to. Yet Uber Technologies advertises itself as "the safest rides on the road" and executives tout Uber as "safer than a taxi.”
That's deceptive advertising and has caused "significant harm" to the taxi industry, 19 cab companies in California claimed Wednesday morning in a lawsuit filed in federal court. The companies allege that Uber’s false claims hurt the profits and reputations of the taxi business, and are seeking an injunction against what they call false claims, and unspecified damages.
The plaintiffs include cab companies up and down the state, from San Francisco to Palm Springs to San Diego, though most are located near Los Angeles. Southland companies include All Yellow Taxi in Gardena, Bell Cab in Hawthorne, Cabco Yellow in Santa Ana and LA City Cab in Sun Valley.
<snip>
“Plaintiffs’ taxi cabs vie for the same customers as Uber cars, and -- as a result -- compete for the same dollars,” reads the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Potential customers, the suit says, "mistakenly believe that they will get a safer ride by hiring an UberX ride -- spurn plaintiff’s taxi cabs for UberX rides, resulting in lost revenue for plaintiffs.”
<snip>
"This frivolous lawsuit is simply without merit,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said in a statement. "As riders across the country know, Uber's multi-layered driver screening includes county, federal and multi-state checks and the rating system and traceability of the Uber platform gives riders and drivers unprecedented transparency.
<snip>
The lawsuit is similar to one filed by the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles late last year, which also alleged that Uber misled the public by saying it uses an “industry-leading background check process” when it doesn’t fingerprint its drivers.
<snip>
That's deceptive advertising and has caused "significant harm" to the taxi industry, 19 cab companies in California claimed Wednesday morning in a lawsuit filed in federal court. The companies allege that Uber’s false claims hurt the profits and reputations of the taxi business, and are seeking an injunction against what they call false claims, and unspecified damages.
The plaintiffs include cab companies up and down the state, from San Francisco to Palm Springs to San Diego, though most are located near Los Angeles. Southland companies include All Yellow Taxi in Gardena, Bell Cab in Hawthorne, Cabco Yellow in Santa Ana and LA City Cab in Sun Valley.
<snip>
“Plaintiffs’ taxi cabs vie for the same customers as Uber cars, and -- as a result -- compete for the same dollars,” reads the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Potential customers, the suit says, "mistakenly believe that they will get a safer ride by hiring an UberX ride -- spurn plaintiff’s taxi cabs for UberX rides, resulting in lost revenue for plaintiffs.”
<snip>
"This frivolous lawsuit is simply without merit,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said in a statement. "As riders across the country know, Uber's multi-layered driver screening includes county, federal and multi-state checks and the rating system and traceability of the Uber platform gives riders and drivers unprecedented transparency.
<snip>
The lawsuit is similar to one filed by the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles late last year, which also alleged that Uber misled the public by saying it uses an “industry-leading background check process” when it doesn’t fingerprint its drivers.
<snip>
Mar 22, 2015, 7:38 pm
#2
Moderator: Luxury Hotels and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, California,USA
Posts: 17,855
Sigh, yet another attempt to get by lawsuit what they can't get through competing more efficiently. Do I trust a cab driver more because he's been fingerprinted? Another category of people who are fingerprinted are criminals, I'm not sure I'd trust them because they have gone through that.
Mar 28, 2015, 11:51 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: GE, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 15,507
To me, the term "ridesharing" implies that you're not doing it for profit. Since the point of Uber, Lyft, etc. are to make money, I really consider them taxi services. That said, the current regulations are mostly designed to protect the yellow cabs at the expense of all of the other services and I think there's room to change the regulations so they provide consumer protection while encouraging competition.
Oct 8, 2016, 6:44 pm
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Programs: UA Priemier Gold
Posts: 61,328
Appeals court rules in favor of Uber in Chicago
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Uber drivers and traditional taxis can continue to operate under different sets of rules in Chicago, throwing out a lawsuit by cab companies who say ride-hailing services are driving them out of business.
The difference in the business models between cab companies and the services — including Uber and Lyft — is great enough that they don’t have to follow the same requirements, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court. “Here’s an analogy,” the judge wrote, “Most cities and towns require dogs but not cats to be licensed.”
The ruling validates a 2014 City Council ordinance that let Uber and Lyft operate in the city without taxi medallions or other standards set for cab companies.
The difference in the business models between cab companies and the services — including Uber and Lyft — is great enough that they don’t have to follow the same requirements, wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court. “Here’s an analogy,” the judge wrote, “Most cities and towns require dogs but not cats to be licensed.”
The ruling validates a 2014 City Council ordinance that let Uber and Lyft operate in the city without taxi medallions or other standards set for cab companies.
Oct 11, 2016, 11:28 am
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,075
I'm eager to see data on this as it's studied, but it seems a little safer to me. If my daughter hails a cab at night, there is no record of who picked her up. She might not easily see the cab number or identifying information about the driver. If the driver gets creepy on her, but not to the point of anything illegal, there is probably not much that can be done about it.
With Uber/Lyft, there is a record of exactly who picked her up, where and when. If the driver is anything less than courteous, she can give him/her a low rating and complain to the company. That driver will very quickly be out of the system if that keeps up.
With Uber/Lyft, there is a record of exactly who picked her up, where and when. If the driver is anything less than courteous, she can give him/her a low rating and complain to the company. That driver will very quickly be out of the system if that keeps up.
Oct 11, 2016, 2:16 pm
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,785
I re-read my post, and I guess it could be confusing as if I am saying Uber is less safe than Taxi. Actually what I was trying to say is that most people picked Uber over Taxi because of "price" not safety.
As for Taxi being safer... I grew up in Hong Kong. Everyone there knows the story of Lam Kor Wan the taxi driver. And what about Sherlock season one first episode?
As for Taxi being safer... I grew up in Hong Kong. Everyone there knows the story of Lam Kor Wan the taxi driver. And what about Sherlock season one first episode?