California Sues Uber Over Practices

mpicpp writes with news that California is the latest government to file a lawsuit against Uber. "California prosecutors on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Uber over the ridesharing company's background checks and other allegations, adding to the popular startup's worldwide legal woes. San Francisco County District Attorney George Gascon, meanwhile, said Uber competitor Lyft agreed to pay $500,000 and change some of its business practices to settle its own lawsuit. Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey partnered with Gascon in a probe of the nascent ridesharing industry. A third company — Sidecar — is still under investigation and could face a lawsuit of its own if it can't reach an agreement with prosecutors. Uber faces similar legal issues elsewhere as it tries to expand in cities, states and countries around the world. The companies have popular smartphone apps that allow passengers to order rides in privately driven cars instead of taxis."

Comments

Ride sharing?

[EzInKy]

"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".

That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.

 

Re:Ride sharing?

[nbauman]

"Hey Ez, where are you going"?
"Up to the store".
"Mind if I go with you, I need a few things".
"Not at all".
"Thanks, here's a couple of bucks for gas".

That is ride sharing. Uber, Lyft, and the others are arranging drivers for hire. Just pointing out the obvious here.

You missed some more obvious:

(1) Ez and his ride-sharer knew each other. The ride-sharer doesn't have to worry about Ez robbing him and vice versa.

(2) Ez was going to the store anyway. The purpose of his trip was to go to the store. His purpose wasn't to make money out of the trip.

That's the difference between Uber and Ez.

If that's not obvious to you, it's obvious to Ez' insurance company if he gets into an accident.

Re:Ride sharing?

[gstoddart]

But ... but ... they're a tech company ... they have an app ... they dispatch using technology. My god, can't you see that this is completely different from a taxi company?

Why, being a tech company, and having an app ... they're nothing at all like a cab company.

Sure, they dispatch drivers to pick you up and drive you somewhere else for money, but ... it's done with a freakin' app, that makes it totally different. Because with an app, the cabs are dispatched with the help of unicorns and kittens.

Yeah, whatever.

My problem with Uber is there is no way to make their argument about being magically exempted from regulation stick. You can't just decree that laws don't apply to you. You can't just decree that your car-for-hire service isn't a car-for-hire service just because the drivers don't work for you.

Their spokespeople have been trained to sound collectively delusional, and either they know they're full of shit, or have drank so much of the kool aid they really believe they're a different kind of entity.

The problem is, they're not the ones who define what they are and what laws apply.

So, yawn, this is just a continuation of the .COM era, except this time it's with smart phones and apps.

You suddenly become worth billions of dollars, when you don't have billions in assets or even revenue. It's an overhyped stock, in an overhyped market, by people who are convinced they're something new.

Except for the GPS part, you've been able to dial #taxi for years. A cellphone doesn't magically make you not a taxi.

Uber is just hype, and once the law establishes they're just a taxi company trying to pretend otherwise.

Claiming you're a technology company who just enables scheduling for illegal cabs just won't cut it.

Not "ridesharing"

[gnasher719]

Can we just say that this is not "ridesharing". Ride sharing happens when I want to go from A to B, and I pick you up on the way because you want to go to a similar route.

The Uber drives have no intention to go from A to B themselves. They are sitting at home waiting from phone calls. It's a private hire car, where you rent out a car together with a driver, to transport other people for payment to places that you don't want to go yourself.

Re:Not "ridesharing"

[AchilleTalon]

The problem is this isn't ridesharing, neither carpooling. The driver has no intention to go where the passenger wants to go and he will do so only because he is paid for. You are not pooling anything here, you are doing what taxis are doing and taxis don't do carpooling because carpooling is primarily intent to ease traffic jams and taxis don't want to take rides in traffic jams. Bottom line, yes, you are right Uber is trying to pull some business away from the traditional taxi industry. It is then perfectly understandable the industry is trying to protect itself from this threat. I don't know what is the compensation for someone enrolled into Uber to provide the service, but here, after doing the math, I don't see how someone can even break even provided the charges. The lower rates are at the expense of the car owner. You can do a little money only if in fact you are giving rides to someone going approximately where you are going anyway.

Another point that is of very concern to the customer, what will happen if you have an accident? Will the car owner insurance pay for the passenger? Can the passenger sue the driver? Can the passenger sue Uber? As far as I know, the standard insurance does not cover such activity as taking passenger for a fee on a regular basis.

Re: Go California!

[plopez]

What planet are you on? Or are you too young to remember how consumers got screwed before consumer protection laws. Yeah feel free to stop using the service after you get killed because your Uber driver was drunk. And it just isn't the passenger there are also other drivers who may be killed or maimed by an unqualified Uber driver. It's not just all about you. And try suing if you get hosed. You will find punishing Uber nigh impossible.

Re: Go California!

[nbauman]

Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't build those streets and highways that these cars drive on. They were built by the government with taxes.

If you're driving on a private road, you can ignore the regulations.

If you want to drive on the public roads, you have to follow the government regulations. License and registration fees for private cars are based on typical use. License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more. They set up regulations because with generations of experience they've seen all the problems that come up and don't want those problems any more. Passengers don't want to get robbed and raped by their drivers. They don't want drivers who are drunk. They don't want to be injured by uninsured drivers. The Uber free market isn't very good at eliminating those risks.

Re: Go California!

[gstoddart]

There's a government failure here, let the free market fix it.

Oh, horse shit.

You're delusional. The free market doesn't exist. It doesn't solve problems. It doesn't achieve optimal outcomes.

It's a fucking abstraction describing long-term outcomes under a perfect hypothetical model based on crap assumptions, not some divine entity.

Adam Mith's invisible hand works wonders, it will fix this too.

In practice, the only thing Smith's "invisible hand" is doing is picking your pocket and giving you the finger.

It isn't some magical entity. It doesn't make good choices. It doesn't care what happens to you. It doesn't actually care if you have perfect information. It doesn't really exist.

The invisible hand is the collective actions of the market over an extended period of time -- and collectively the market is rigged, and people are gaming the system. The invisible hand won't fix that.

The premise that the free market achieves perfect outcomes over the long haul assumes the system isn't corrupt, and that the players aren't actively undermining it.

But humans are corrupt, and always will be. Which means in practice the "free market" devolves into cartels and other things which try to stop the market from being free.

It doesn't exist. Has never existed. Cannot exist. And if by accident it briefly existed, it would be undermined immediately by the humans.

Re:More likely to be killed by cops than Uber

[plopez]

Nope. Uber is a bunch of pirates. If you think Uber or Lyft have your best interest and safety in mind think again. Uber and Lyft are answerable to one. If things get really bad people can scream at the PUC and vote elected officials out of office. You cannot fire the owners of Lyft and Uber. They don't care. They are making a profit by externalizing risk which is wrong wrong wrong. Greed is not good.

Re: Go California!

[kilfarsnar]

Consumers are terrible at protecting themselves. "Quality Products / Services" takes third place in terms of things that get a business to the top, after "Excellent PR Control / Advertising" and "Ruthless Business Practices". If you want to see what happens when you reduce consumer protections and monitoring, look to the third world where companies put melamine in their food to artificially inflate the protein count and fake baby formula with little to no nutritional value gets passed off as legit.

Yeah, but what about Comcast? They're the most hated company in the country. They screw their customers and no one wants to do business with them. So everyone exercised their power as consumers and sued Comcast or simply took their business elsewhere. Eventually Comcast went out of business because they provided such terrible service.

Isn't that how it happened?

Re: Go California!

[wiredlogic]

License and registration fees for taxis and limousines are based on heavy, 24 hours a day use, and cost a lot more.

No they aren't. They're based on regulatory capture to limit the amount of competition with a not to "public safety". The cost of an NYC medallion is due to artificial scarcity, not the amount of use cabs put on city streets.

What Uber is doing in these markets is illegal but the demand from consumers using their services shows the current system does not support competitive pricing.