This time its the Passengers Suing Uber

Uber is used to being sued by regulators and taxi companies, but now passengers are getting into the act. Two riders in San Francisco are suing the company over its $1 "Safe Rides Fee." According to Gizmodo, the theory of the case is that "it's a bullshit fee."

Here is Gizmodo's summary of the complaint:

The lawsuit challenges Uber's claim that it conducts background checks that are supposedly more stringent than that of taxi companies. The only problem? They're really not more stringent. The background checks conducted by taxi companies typically include fingerprints and other methods of verifying a driver's identity. One of the big criticisms of Uber's background checks for UberX drivers is that it's easy to just use someone else's identity.

The complaint filed in federal court claims a right to relief under California professional licensing law and California consumer protection law.

The article claims that district attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco filed their own suits earlier this month over the Safe Rides Fee. 

In the Fighting City, Cab Companies call Uber a Racketeer

Dozens of Philadelphia taxi companies are suing Uber under the RICO statute, labeling the venture capital backed service a racketeering enterprise. 

The complaint says that Uber circumventions state and city regulations and that it has caused the traditional taxi business and medallion prices to plummet. The plaintiffs also want an injunction that would bar Uber from operating in the region.

A Life in Ruins

One of the thousands of drivers whose cars have been seized by the TLC-- always without a warrant and without a hearing-- for acting a taxi without a license has sued the agency for "ruining his life." Michael Davis of Allentown, Pennsylvania, claims $1 million in damages because the TLC seized his car at Kennedy Airport, which led to his being stranded, fired from his job as a limo driver, facing eviction, his wife miscarrying and unable to buy Christmas presents for his kids.

Davis says that a TLC inspector approached him and offered to pay him to driver her from JFK to LaGuardia Airport. Davis said he could not take the fare, but when the woman persisted, he offered to drive her for free.  The TLC then seized his car and later falsified evidence against him, reports Rebecca Harshbarger in the New York Post.

Check This!

The New York Times has a Christmas Day editorial saying that app-based taxi services like Uber and Lyft need to do a better job of background-checking their drivers. It cites a single incident-- albeit one that has grabbed headlines-- in which an Uber Driver in New Delhi was accused of raping a passenger.  

Uber, for one, says its checks are superior to those conducted by taxi regulators. Uber naturally does an Internet-based check, not a fingerprint based search used by at least some regulators.

What this editorial and many like it miss is that an aversion to regulation, background checks included, is the whole point of app-based services. They say that driver reviews regulate the system and weed out bad drivers. 

Taxi of Tomorrow -- or maybe the day after. Or never.

An interesting autoblog post details the history of legal and business problems behind the Taxi of Tomorrow.  It's set to be litigated again in the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court,  which granted the taxi industry group leading the opposition to the Nissan vehicle the right to appeal.  
Opposition to the T of T is summed up nicely by Ethan Gerber of the Greater New York Taxi Association, who says, "Look, Nissan is a good company. And the NV200 is not a bad car. If it turns out that people like it, then great – they should be able to sell them here.  But why can't we have competition? Why did the city think there had to be exclusivity? It stifles competition and stops innovation."

Spain to Uber: No Mas

A Spanish judge has ordered to stop operating in Spain, a ruling that followed  series of protests by taxi associations, according to the BBC.

In his ruling on the temporary ban, the judge said Uber drivers didn't have official authorization and accused the service of "unfair competition". This ruling seems similar to the one being sought by municipal officials in Portland, Oregon.

The move follows a complaint by the Madrid Taxi Association.

An Uber, meanwhile, says it is still operating for the time being and there is some uncertainty as to whether the judge's oder has taken effect.

The same BBC report says that judges in The Netherlands banned the UberPop ride-sharing service, which was launched as a pilot project in Amsterdam between July and September and subsequently extended to The Hague and Rotterdam.

"Drivers who transport people for payment without a licence are breaking the law," said the decision from the Hague-based Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal.

Portland Punts Uber

The city of Portland, Oregon, has filed a lawsuit to block Uber from operating in its city. According to the Guardian, Uber started offering its low-cost Uber-X service, which, it seems, aims to used unlicensed cars and drivers not licensed as tax drivers to operate the service. Passengers would hail the non-taxis with the famed Uber app.

Until now, Portland had been the largest U.S. city without Uber, the Gurdian says. 

“Our main concern is public health and safety,” mayor Charlie Hales is quoted as saying in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “Beyond that, though, is the issue of fairness. Taxi cab companies follow rules on public health and safety. So do hotels and restaurants and construction companies and scores of other service providers. Because everyone agrees: good regulations make for a safer community. Uber disagrees, so we’re seeking a court injunction.”

In some cities, such as New York, Uber and other services such as Lyft, has agreed to operate only with licensed car service drivers and licensed cars.   Elsewhere, the app-based services have come into town unregulated. 

The Portland lawsuit asks the court to confirm Uber is subject to the city’s regulations and to halt its operations until it is in compliance. 

Uber crashes Portland

Uber started operation in Portland this week even though it lacked the permits and inspections that the city says are required for any taxi service, according to Geekwire.

The city has already conducted enforcement actions against Uber drivers and is certainly not happy with Uber doing business on its streets, the report says.

“We have told Uber and Lyft that they are welcome to offer ideas for regulatory changes,” City Commissioner Steve Novick said in a statement. “Uber has chosen instead to break the law.”

A blog post in the New York Times says:

In October, Uber began its service in Las Vegas, where it was deemed illegal; multiple drivers were cited within hours of the company’s debut there. Similar scenarios played out in Austin, Tex., Philadelphia and other cities around the country.
 But Uber’s move in Portland comes just days after it vowed in a blog post to become a ‘smarter and more humble company.’ Uber, which is now valued at more than $40 billion, is reeling from a string of recent embarrassments that have critics questioning its ethics. The company’s executives have been accused of taking a lax approach to customer privacy, among other criticisms.

Uber’s manager in Portland told the website, “I think launching is not an act of aggression on our part; it’s actually a hope to serve [driver and passenger] needs.”

The Geekwire post includes a Q&A with Brooke Steger, Uber's honcho in the city.