Slashdot Mirror
Uber Has a Playbook For Sabotaging Lyft, Says Report
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes The folks over at The Verge claim that "Uber is arming teams of independent contractors with burner phones and credit cards as part of its sophisticated effort to undermine Lyft and other competitors." Interviews and documents apparently show Uber reps ordering and canceling Lyft rides by the thousands, following a playbook with advice designed to prevent Lyft from flagging their accounts. 'Uber appears to be replicating its program across the country. One email obtained by The Verge links to an online form for requesting burner phones, credit cards, and driver kits — everything an Uber driver needs to get started, which recruiters often carry with them.' Is this an example of legal-but-hard-hitting business tactics, or is Uber overstepping its bounds? The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat — if not more so — than any other industry out there.
If their contracts are reasonably well written, I bet they are guilty of at least a misdemeanor.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat
If more money than the partial cost of gas changes hands it is no longer sharing.
that Uber is really opening itself up to legal risk by doing this. This is essentially organized fraud. It's one thing to intend to purchase a lift and then cancel it at the last second, but by actually organizing mass cancellations when you really have no intention of purchasing a ride, you are really going down a path of massive fraud. I
or
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
I think the the Talking Heads and The Who said it all.
My view: If you catch the crest of the wave of the various "sharing economy" services that are popping up, like AirBnB or Uber, you will likely have a good experience. But as they grow and other pressures come to the fore, thus poisoning the well, it's time to get out and move on.
...or am I missing something?
Loading...
I always thought that rules are for cowards (if you belied the Uber etc. lobbyists). The good thing about bein a taxi is that the situation in this case would be pretty clear, i guess.
Now that's what I call competition.
'"What’s simply untrue is that not only does Uber know about this, they’re actively encouraging these actions day-to-day and, in doing so, are flat-out lying both to their customers, the media, and their investors," the contractor said.'
Okay, so it's implied that was is untrue is that Uberdoesn't know about this, but that's certainly not what was said...
(Which is not to dispute facts, mostly because I don't have facts to dispute. Though I would like them - I've enjoyed using Uber, but this would certainly encourage me to steer clear.)
As much as I hate to see it used, a Terms of Service (ToS) violation and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) may still apply especially since they are using tactics to avoid detection (aka use of "burner phones" and credit card numbers)
It may also be a violation of the various credit card companies' ToS as well.
Hilarious. No, not the shady tactics - the fact that companies like Uber and Lyft whine about being regulated as taxi services, arguing that they are not taxi services, then getting into the same sort of idiotic, self-harming feuds that forced the government to start regulating taxi services.
History, on a loop!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Gain an advantage over legal competitors by ignoring regulations in your industry.
2. Gain an advantage over fellow illegal competitors with dirty tricks.
3. PROFIT!!!!
az0
That is almost certainly illegal. If nothing else, it'd be tortuous interference, clearly designed to harm. Using burner phones is contributory evidence to fraud by showing mal intent.
I hate hipsters, assholes, and golddiggers. And I hate people that try to get ahead by stepping on other people's heads.
Watching the fight between Uber and Lyft, it feels like the appropriate way to do a little bit of social good is simply calling Yellow Cab.
I think not...(*poof*)
With David Plouffe onboard at Uber, a blizzard of blatant shameless dishonesty as part of a win-at-all-costs campaign is a certainty. Remember those "if you like your doctor..." and "if you like your health insurance..." Obama lies? (and YES, they WERE lies becuase the documents came out that show team Obama knew they were false claims at the time they made them). Plouffe was on THAT team. The guy is as filthy and dishonest as Karl Rove.
The so-called sharing economy seems just as cutthroat --- if not more so --- than any other industry out there.
The geek's definition of "sharing" has always been --- flexible.
Taxi services were cutthroat in the old days. Fleecing their customers and constantly at war with each other. That is why they came under regulation.
The summary here is about as deceptive as I could possibly imagine. What Uber is attempting to do isn't to initiate a lot of bogus trips and then cancel. They're attempting to recruit drivers from other companies and have them become drivers for Uber. The use of burner phones and credit cards are to prevent the easy detection of recruiters. Not to make fake trip requests.
Personally, I believe that such tactics are legal, but morally suspect (if the tactics were illegal, it would also be illegal for a company to attempt to recruit employees from other companies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... )
You would think that Lyft was the last people that Uber has to worry about with all the entrenched taxi monopolies and the regulators after their blood.
It would seem to be pretty easy to prove, and cost Uber money... The point under test is Tortious interference...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It's almost like, if you don't regulate taxis, then they do all kinds of nasty stuff you wouldn't want them doing!
Since they have no intention of actual using the service, then it's fraud.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Evil knows no limits.
Those who profess Good in actions, rarely practice it, unless jailed repeatedly for high financial crimes and assets liquidated and given away to the poor.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Although it is fun to ride on humans, If I need to get from A to B, I'll choose a car.
The taxi business has always been cut-throat. Taxi, "car for hire," ridesharing — call it what you will — at the end of the day it's gypsy cab operators squabbling over fares.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I don't use Uber, as they are a bunch of fucking scumbags.
Have no use for Lyft either, but hopefully some law firm crushes those assholes at Uber.
So what stops me from just picking up one of these "burner" phones and (presumably prepaid) credit cards to actually use for legitimate purposes?
Hell, even if they just send me a bottom-of-the-barrel tracphone, hey, free $30 flip-phone to keep in the car for emergencies (911 will work on any activated US cell phone, regardless of its in-service status)!
I know the cab and limo business pretty well (check my /. user name), and I give Uber and Lyft another two years before they start fading. Drivers will get tired of paying high commissions, having all their income reported to the IRS, and beating up their cars like crazy. I survived and did well in the limo biz largely because I could do most of my own repairs and knew low-cost shops that could handle the rest. If I wanted to go back to driving for money (no need - between SS and the "side" freelance work I do, I'm fine) I'd probably work work with Uber until I built up my own "book" of business, that is, personal customers. Then I'd say "sayonara" to Uber, just as I did to the cab company as soon as I had enough personal business to tell them to go screw themselves and a threatened RICO suit against the Baltimore cab companies and the MD Public Service Commission opened the business to anyone with an inspected car, good commercial insurance, and a clean criminal record.
My little group of owner/drivers competed successfully with Boston Coach, Carey, and other national companies. I have no doubt that I could compete successfully with Uber, too. Lyft? A low-rent gypsy cab service. I could beat them, too, but why bother? I did a little gypsy cab work many years ago, but didn't love it.
False Representation
Denial of Service
Fraudulant Use/Misuse of Computer Resources
Malicious Bypass of Security Protocols
Illegal? Yes.
Hanging offence? It should be.
Grist for the London cab companies for unfair competition? Ohhhhhh, I hope they've been informed. That could be so fun to watch.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If they get away from this and this is how low the bar is set, I can imagine the established taxi service with a central dispatch system will employ the tactic on the orignator, and have some backlash protection quickly able to blacklist blocks of cell numbers on throw away accounts and whitelisting many bars and other public access phones.
Blacklisted - Do not respond, long drive to arrive.. Trac Phone number or Magic Jack number, or already abused number.
Tenative, unknown new customer on questionable prefix. Respond if very local to a driver. No long drives and limit wating time.
Whitelist, Joe's Bar where Joe calls the cab for someone, gives customer's ID, or a taxi regular.
The truth shall set you free!
there is nothing immoral about offering a worker a better job. if uber does not want to lose their drivers to the competition they can pay better
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I wouldn't really call them a new spin on taxis. They're more like the remises in Argentina, and unlicensed (and technically illegal) taxis in many other countries. Basically, you have the licensed and regulated taxis, where you have a relatively strong assurance that you'll get where you want to go for a controlled/metered rate, in a reasonably safe and well maintained vehicle, and if you have a problem you can write down the cab number and make a complaint to a regulator. You also pay a fairly hefty fee for all this.
If you're willing to take a bit more risk, you can flag down a remis, pay a couple pesos per person, and they'll take you from where you are to downtown, or from downtown back out to the residential area you live in. The drivers make these trips all day, fill the car as full of people as it can possibly be filled (they pick up additional people along the way until the car is completely full and then some). They run on the cheapest fuel possible (in Argentina, typically LPG), and are not necessarily well-maintained. So there's risk. And, while you typically get where you want to be OK, there's plenty of opportunity for an unscrupulous person to take advantage of individual riders (or even groups if they're organized well and coordinating with someone else). So again... it's a risk.
There's a reason taxi cabs are regulated as heavily as they are, and in general it's probably a good thing for public safety even though they're freakishly expensive.
there is nothing immoral about offering a worker a better job. if uber does not want to lose their drivers to the competition they can pay better
Except the story is about Uber trying to poach Lyft drivers, not Lyft trying to steal Uber drivers.
I guess you haven't tried my genital sharing business, hookr.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
This is American capitalism at its finest. Who is really morally invested in Uber or Lyft anyway? As long as they don't lie or burn riders, this tough competition will likely only help riders.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Uber and Lyft are both much cheaper than traditional "regulated" taxis, and this scheme only cost the other company and driver. So as a consumer, why do I care?
Well you should care, because if you get into an accident, you're paying on your own. That's what the family of this poor girl hit by an Uber driver found out.
And frankly I see no justification for Uber not to get insurance coverage for their drivers.
For comparison, look at New York's taxi medallion system. All it has done is raise the entry price to astronomical levels, which leaves the consumer paying outrageous prices and the drivers making very little.
I agree that the NYC regulatory system is rife with abuse, but the fault lies in the execution. All laws are prone to abuse if your have corrupt politicians in charge. You can't use the excuse that laws have the potential to be abused to not pass any laws or regulations.
I would argue instead that there should be some regulation, as least insofar as the public safety and health hazard aspects are concerned. Lets face it- all private enterprises are in the business to make money. One way of doing that is to reduce costs as low as possible, including paying for things like insurance, background checks on drivers etc. If there is no legal compulsion you can bet that they will cut these costs to the bone.
Uber reps ordering and canceling Lyft rides by the thousands, [...] Is this an example of legal-but-hard-hitting business tactics, or is Uber overstepping its bounds?
Are you fucking kidding me? This is so plainly in the "if it's not illegal, it ought to be" category that it's really difficult to think of a more clear example.
It's a direct attack on a competitors system, intended to deprive them of their ability to deliver their service. In IT security terms we'd call it a DOS.
If this rumoured playbook exists, someone ought to go to jail for it. To me it's bright as daylight and even asking the question seems stupid.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Placing and canceling orders with the objective of disrupting a competitor's business? Yeah, that's wrong. Lyft could easily adopt the countermeasure of charging for cancellations, and requiring a legit user to identify themselves to request a refund.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bullshit. Limiting the supply of cars is just another way to prop up the taxi cartels.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why not just give them multiple SIM cards?
They are a new spin on taxis. Instead of calling a cab company/driver on your cell phone or waving them down on the street, you call/wave them down over the internet.
Given your perspective then, I have to ask: is the mutual cannibalization of Uber with Lyft a sign that they're already beginning to peak and thus to fade? And will the regulated taxi services survive?
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.