London High Court to decide Uber dispute

The battle over taxi apps has gone international, with disputes flaring up in England and France as well as all over the U.S.  Even the regulators don't know what to do and in London, the transport authority has kicked the can to the British High Court.  According to an item in Gigom:

London’s transport authority will ask the British High Court to decide whether car services such as Uber that use smartphones to determine the customer’s fare should be regulated in the same way as traditional “black cabs” and private hire services. 

London cabbies are as highly regulated as any, with officials only licensing cabbies who prove they hat  “The Knowledge” — a comprehensive, testable understanding of the city’s intricate and ancient streets that obviates the need for GPS or paper maps.

These furious with the likes of Uber and Hailo, not just because they pose a massive threat by being more convenient, but because their drivers apparently don’t need to adhere to the same stringent standards. 

UK regulators have "admitted the law in this area was somewhat woolly, and said it wanted High Court judges to clear things up," Gigom says. 

The cabbies aren’t impressed and told the BBC they’d be launching a case of their own.  

Throwback Thursday: Statharos v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n

The 1999 case, Statharos v. New York CityTaxi & Limousine Comm’n, 198 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1999), is perhaps the high water mark for TLC regulations of the taxi industry and the the court's deference to that regulation.  

The Statharos case came in the wake of the Giuliani-era New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission's enactment of a new raft of litigation. Perhaps most important were the so-called "Critical Driver" and "Persistent Violator" rule, both of which allowed the TLC to suspend or revoke cabdriver licenses when the driver accumulated just six or ten DMV or TLC "points" on their licenses. But the regulations also required far more record-keeping and reporting requirements by taxicab and medallion owners. 

The lawsuit was by several small, closely-held corporations, each of which owned two taxi medallions who sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of financial disclosure requirements set forth in the regulation. Judge John Martin denied the application, and shareholders appealed. The Court of Appeals Circuit Judge, held that: (1) Commission did not impermissibly arrogate powers properly belonging to legislature in promulgating regulation, and (2) regulation did not violate shareholders' constitutional right to privacy.

The plaintiffs argued that the TLC acted in excess of its legal authority in promulgating financial disclosure rule and that in that it impermissibly arrogated powers properly belonging to the legislature. The Court of Appeals rejected that arguments, relying   on recent decisions by state courts that the City Charter delegated to the TLC a “broad grant of authority ... to promulgate and implement a pervasive regulatory program for the taxicab industry, including ... requirements for the maintenance of financial security.” 

The extent of the TLC's authority to regulate the industry and the actions of taxi drivers and taxi owners would be a persistent theme in the years to come, including recently in litigation about the Taxi of Tomorrow, the healthcare fund for taxi drivers and the TLC policy of suspending or revoking taxi drivers for off duty arrests or crimes. In these later cases, courts tended to take a more critical view of the authority allowed to an unelected board of unpaid advisors.