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?

[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.