Uber Must Submit CEO Emails

Rambo Tribble writes: Uber has lost its bid in U.S. federal court to avoid disclosing emails from Chief Executive Travis Kalanick in a California lawsuit accusing the popular ride-booking service of deceiving customers about how it shares tips with drivers. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, in reference to U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu's ruling that the plaintiff in the lawsuit can receive emails from Kalanick and global operations chief Ryan Graves, wrote, "That Judge Ryu's order may require defendant to review approximately 21,000 documents does not represent an improper burden given the potential role of defendant's CEO and vice president of operations in defendant's challenged conduct." This comes amid mounting legal problems for Uber, including South Korea indicting Kalanick on charges he violated local licensing laws and numerous cities around the globe banning the service.

Comments

Stick a fork in, Uber is done.

[Frosty Piss]

This is not an "editorial" on Uber as a service compared to traditional cab services, but rather an observation that growing government regulation (banning) of Uber (and similar services) and the liability of an almost certain stream of lawsuits will simply negate any way for services like Uber to continue.

Re:Stick a fork in, Uber is done.

[Lehk228]

not even expansion of regulations, uber was illegal from the start in many jurisdictions

Re:Stick a fork in, Uber is done.

[thetoadwarrior]

It's not like they invented regulations to block Uber. They're simply making Uber play by the same rules which is fair. If Uber rather quit offering services to an area rather than comply with the law they're welcome to do that.

Re:Stick a fork in, Uber is done.

[BarbaraHudson]

Maybe it's time to change their name to "Unter"?

Re:Stick a fork in, Uber is done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look it's argument by irrelevance.

Taxi regulations were put into place a hundred years ago because taxi brokers were unscrupulous and taxi work was a big risk for both the driver and the passenger. Similarly, today we find Uber as corporation to demonstrate highly unethical behaviour, drivers to be exploited (being an Uber driver is unsustainable if you properly insure and maintain your car), and as for customers... well, the first hit's always cheap.

It requires a particularly maladjusted tin foil hat to believe these regulations can in any way be compared with those flag-waving laws which were introduced specifically at the time of the introduction of the automobile as a result of lobbying by those who didn't like 'em. "Here's one ridiculous law, therefore any law I don't like can be compared to it!" is the most sophomoric argument, and you are an intellectually dishonest embarrassment to have applied it.

Uber's in a completely different market

[Hadlock]

Everyone I know uses Uber, at least once a quarter. It only takes 5 minutes for an Uber to arrive and typically it only costs $5 to get a ride back to your car, or $20 to get a ride back home. When calling a taxi, you may or may not have someone arrive within an hour, especially during peak hours. What's the point? If it takes an hour for a Taxi to arrive and you're going less than 4 miles, it's faster to just walk.
 
Taxi companies want the Uber business, of course they do. But Uber customers hate taxis. They're dirty, filthy, never arrive on time and dealing with change/tips is a real hassle. Especially if it's late and you've been out with friends all night. If Uber disappeared from my city I'd just stop using similar services. Uber makes it just this side of bearable. Taxis are a fucking disaster and unless I'm headed home from the airport in a foreign city, I doubt you'll ever see me in one. If Uber disappears, so does my desire to use "taxi" services.

Re:Uber's in a completely different market

[houghi]

Not sure where you live, but where I live, taxi's have to pay taxes. They have to pay social security. They have to pay for meters. They have to pay for insurance with passengers. Also for extra technical testing of the cars. And also for the taxi stands.

If you cut all that out, it is obvious that itwill be cheaper. Illegal, but cheaper. Just as if I would run a sweatshop. Illegal, but cheaper.

That does not mean there are no problems with the taxi business, but running things illegal is not the solution. If anything it will enhance the problem.

Re:Uber's in a completely different market

[TWX]

You live in a suburban city, not an urban city. Your city was designed with with the automobile in mind, and the vast majority of residents of your city drive themselves. That goes a long way to explaining why you can't easily grab an unscheduled cab ride except from certain hubs of activity, as there's no profit in hanging out in the suburbs to wait for a fare that may or may not come.

I expect that you'll find taxis waiting at the airports, at busier hotels, at the sports venues during activities, at the convention centers during activities, at the more popular shopping centers, and possibly any of the higher-density downtown-type areas. Part of the reason you have to wait for a taxi in the suburbs is because they're going to pick you up after another fare into that part of the suburbs needs to be dropped off, so they can justify the trip out there.

The taxi services don't owe you anything. The taxi services are also operating within the law as the state, the counties, and the cities require, with commercial insurance, commercial vehicle inspections, and probably with extra screening for their drivers and their licenses. Uber, by claiming to be a ride-sharing service where the driver is supposedly already going your way and you're supposed to be reimbursing him for your portion of the drive, is cheating when the drivers are just picking up and dropping off fares without the drivers themselves having their own destinations to attend to along the route. Those drivers don't have the same insurance and don't have to have their vehicles inspected to commercial levels, and probably don't even have their drivers' licenses scrutinized.

Last time I took a taxi was in SF. Worked fine. Hailed one on the street and took it the few blocks I needed to go. That's a high-density city. I could have hailed one in London or in Paris, but I didn't need cabs in those cities. Either way, it would have been an easy option, where the population density was high enough to make it cost effective to have cabs roaming looking for fares.

Re:Uber's in a completely different market

[TapeCutter]

I'm sure the taxi industry will be crushed by the loss of your $5 per quarter.

Sure Uber is cheap, it makes it's money by exploiting people who are desperate for work and have a drivable car. After a few months the driver is still desperate but no longer has a drivable car because he can't afford the tyres/maintenance. Worst still, if the driver fucks up and doesn't have the right kind of registration/insurance then he will be paying for it for the rest of his life.

Disclaimer: Ex-taxi driver, Melbourne, late 80's. I once had a complainer like you in the cab, he had flagged me down and was in a big hurry, as soon as we got going he started bitching I wasn't going fast enough. When I pointed out I was driving at the speed limit he just became more cranky and replied "it would be quicker by bus". I pulled over at the next bus stop and threw him out of the cab, I let him keep the $5 on the meter, the look of shocked disbelief on his face was worth it.