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.
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.
A misdemeanor is a criminal offence. Breach of contract is not a criminal offence.
...or am I missing something?
Loading...
Tortious interference.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Except what will happen is Uber will come out and say that after an internal investigation, they found a few rogue employees had the program up on their own time, and Uber has now put a stop to it, etc.. It's how these things work. It's really no different than getting cut off while driving, tracking the plate number through the DMV for a physical address, and then setting up your stripper friend to show up while during their family dinner.
We've all done that.
It's really no different than getting cut off while driving, tracking the plate number through the DMV for a physical address, and then setting up your stripper friend to show up while during their family dinner.
If I'd known it would cause strippers to show up for free at my house for dinner, I'd have started cutting people off the moment I got my driver's license.
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
Same reason I'm not allowed in the reptile house at London Zoo any more.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I do not believe that "bork" is a legal term with any validity.
I guess you missed the legal origin of the term "To Bork" Bork as a Verb
If it happened to a Judge - it is a legal term.
(Not properly used here though)
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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.
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.
Well it appears they have entered into the contract with the explicit purpose to disrupt their business, it is arguably fraud or at least tortuous interference, it could be argued as either a criminal or civil offense.
Breach of contract is not a criminal offense. Entering into a contract with the intent to breach it from the onset is fraud, and a criminal offense. Obviously the threshold of proof for the latter is a lot higher.
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.
Signing a contract with the specific intention of violating it can be. It can also be a felony, depending on the amount of money involved. If Uber is involved in coordinating this, in theory, they could end up facing RICO charges as a criminal syndicate.
The kind of thinking that leads to this kind of dishonesty is why the taxi industry has been so tightly regulated for so long.
If they're willing to do this to each other, to cost each other money, imagine what they're willing to do to you, the fare, who have money for them to take.
Yeah. I really don't get the nutjobs around here who run around bitching about how Taxis need less and less regulation. It's like they have no idea what it was like before the regulations were put in place. It's not like some politicians got together and conspired over the course of several decades to regulate an industry for the sole purpose of being dicks. Those regulations were instituted because taxi drivers and taxi companies were doing incredibly unethical things that were causing damage to both people and to the economy.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
well, what happens is that non-Uber taxi's go away, then you get Uber charging higher and higher prices, and pay their drivers less and less.
It's basically rebooting the taxi system.
Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Only now with computers.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
People don't realise how costly monopolies are. I work for a UK hospital, and have worked in the department that's responsible for purchasing all of the medicines the hospital uses. We have an online system that tells us for any given drug that generic A is the cheapest at £0.50 per box, generic B is £0.60, generic C is £1.00 per box and generic D is £5.00 per box. If every hospital buys generic A's levothyroxine, then generics B, C and D will just stop producing this medicine, because there's no market for it - and then if generic A wants to charge £20.00 per box, they can, because they have no competition to bring the prices down and the hospitals need to buy levothyroxine.
So instead, the hospitals are grouped into purchasing regions, and one region will buy generic A's levothyroxine, one will buy generic B, and one will buy generic C. (Generic D doesn't get a look-in because its prices are considered unreasonably high). The hospitals that were made to buy the more expensive levothyroxine will then be told to purchase the cheapest simvastatin, and the middling-cheapest flucloxacillin (while the people who bought the cheap levothyroxine will buy the more expensive flucloxacillin), so no region is out-of-pocket overall.
And yet, when I've mentioned this to people, they seem to think this is unnecessary, and all the hospitals should just buy the cheapest version of every medication. Here's what happens when a company is given a monopoly and decides not to play nicely with its customers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...