
Uber should be suspended in California and fined $7.3M, judge says - danso
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-fi-uber-suspended-20150715-story.html
======
Lucratert
Uber isn't complying with a law that they supported.

"California has always been on the cutting edge. The CPUC agreement further
demonstrates how the Golden State welcomes and supports not only technological
advancement, but a better future for drivers, riders, and our cities."

[http://newsroom.uber.com/la/2013/01/california-clears-
uber-t...](http://newsroom.uber.com/la/2013/01/california-clears-uber-to-
continue-and-expand-operations/)

------
mrkmcknz
I think Uber is a great company and I love the product.

However, I can't remember a startup that received billions in funding and
having such disregard for local laws around the globe. I just don't get it.
They literally don't comply with any law in any country and give zero shits
about the consequences.

~~~
the_ancient
Those laws should not be on the books anyway, the fact they disregard them is
one of the main reasons I support uber.

~~~
themagician
If a regular person routinely disregards the law because they don't agree with
it they go to prison.

But when a $40 billion tech startup does it, it's cool.

Got it.

~~~
Retra
Yes, organizations have more power and importance than individuals. This has
been true everywhere throughout most of human history.

~~~
techdragon
Which is why allowing them to undertake acts of civil disobedience is just
letting in the Visigoths.

If money and power is allowed to buy a company greater ability to ignore the
law than an individual human citizen... We all may as well call it a day,
write the entire system off and start thinking about how the next one should
work. Unless I see a counter example of say Google or Apple ignoring a stupid
encryption must have back doors type law then we have zero examples of
corporations ignoring the law for good... Vs hundreds of examples of them
ignoring the law for evil, and a handful of examples where the good vs evil
question is uncertain but should still be considered bad because they are
breaking the law.

------
HappyTypist
I question the value of CPUC wanting detailed _historical_ operational data.
It seems like an attempt by an outdated regulatory organization to shoehorn
itself by flexing its authority, creating nothing but more bureaucratic
inefficiency.

What purpose does it serve? How will it make California more safe? How are the
legal costs, the administrative costs, and the overhead costs justified? I
think these questions should be asked more often, instead of blindly
respecting that authority is good, and regulation is a net positive.

~~~
greenyoda
This issue is not that CPUC wants this data, it's that state law requires
operators to provide the data to CPUC. The article says:

 _" Uber's parent company has refused to provide data on operational data that
is required under the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing firms, the
California Public Utilities Commission judge said in a decision issued
Wednesday afternoon."_

~~~
HappyTypist
That is a separate issue. While an unjust law is still law, it does not mean I
will look down on a service that ignores unjust laws.

------
SilasX
This reminds me of Yishan Wong's comment about the law being "lazily
evaluated" [1]. Whatever the legal merit of the ruling, the plain political
reality is that Uber has establish an immense base of satisfied users and will
therefore receive significant pushback on this. I personally can't imagine
Uber shutting down in CA at this point: so many people are past the the "can't
imagine how I did it before..." threshold.

While Uber's strategy was in a gray (if not black) area at the time of
inception, by the time the law gets around to "evaluating" whether to act
against Uber, the sands have shifted, vindicating Wong's point.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-
regula...](https://www.quora.com/Why-has-Airbnb-not-been-sued-or-regulated-
out-of-existence/answer/Yishan-Wong?share=1)

------
Tycho
The people of California can surely now breathe a sigh of relief that the
government was able to protect them from this predatory company and the
services it offered.

~~~
dikaiosune
The rule of law is something that every US business relies on. Further, I
doubt that Uber relies on vigilante justice to settle their disputes -- they
(just like everyone else) rely on the law and the courts to get what's legally
entitled to them.

~~~
Tycho
Legitimate businesses rely mostly on the enforcement of contracts and
protection of property.

Immoral businesses rely on government force to prevent other citizens freely
engaging in otherwise harmless transactions for mutual benefit.

------
Systemic33
Considering the massive backlash Uber has received around the world, i'm quite
impressed how they can keep the show going, and investors keep funding them.

Doesn't this seem like a lost cause for VC's?

Edit:

I get that the service they provide is hugely beneficial to the customers, but
if that is only possible from breaking the law, then it's doomed to fail.

E.g. If an airline company provided extremely cheap flights, by having people
who just received a license to fly be the captain, then you are asking for
trouble, legal and illegal.

Truth be told, if Uber pivoted to instead of cutting out the taxi companies,
instead delivered the app as a service for the taxi companies, then they could
probably optimize their respective companies to be able to provide taxi
services cheaper and with better service.

~~~
Kranar
Everywhere I've been people/customers love Uber. I live in Toronto and I think
it's safe to say the people much prefer Uber over taxis.

The only significant entities who dislike Uber seem to be taxi companies and
governments.

~~~
justizin
.. and the victims of accidents who find that the drivers are not properly
insured, and the drivers who find that their insurance company drops them and
they are liable .. and people who think that you should be able to get a
fucking cab in the rain for less than $400. ;)

~~~
smeyer
I can't speak to the insurance side, but I know that in Boston, the sort of
times when a surge goes over 2x are the same sort of times that it's very
difficult to hail a cab, let alone expect dispatch to send one if you call. If
the weather is bad enough to be at a 2.5x surge, I'd never expect to be able
to get a hackney cab here. Other cities may not have this problem.

------
ranman
I love uber and use it daily. I live in NYC where taxis have been getting
worse and worse over the past few years.

I am very concerned about how much their "contractors" make though. Some of
the drivers I speak to claim they can make 100k a year driving just Friday and
Saturday nights... others say they aren't making much profit after insurance,
TLC, and leasing costs.

~~~
carterehsmith
Honestly, what would be nice to see, is the breakdown: who is making money,
and how much, when one rides the taxicab, i.e. Uber vs Yellow Cab vs whatever-
cab.

Also, whether the price is sustainable, or is it just price-dumping.

I want to give more money to the cabbie driver, and then less and less to the
broker (Yellow Cab or Uber) (10% finders fee is what is common in other
businesses), medallion owner (0% - provides no value), car owner (investor -
10% a year would be great investment), licensing board (fixed fee, say $300),
insurance ($thousands per year for sure), and whoever else is trying to make
money on this.

------
leereeves
Details from [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/uber-
fined-7m-kee...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/uber-
fined-7m-keeping-info-california-regulators-32479254)

> The judge agreed with utility commission staff who said Uber has not filed
> all required reports, specifically about how often it provided disabled-
> accessible vehicles when requested, places where drivers tend to turn down
> ride requests, and the causes of accidents.

------
superuser2
This ruling is a (proposed) penalty for _failing to hand over private customer
data including GPS logs of trips_. HN would normally _love_ to see a company
stand up to such an order.

------
arielm
Although I dislike the term "disruptive", this is a great case of just that.
Uber aggressively disrupted the taxi industry without regard to rules or
regulations and is now seeing the side of the law that appreciates those.

I personally think uber is a great service. The company's aggressive growth
strategies can be questioned but given the offended industry is one that
hasn't changed in ages, is controlled by a small few, and has lots of issues
on its own, I think über is fine.

Another byproduct of their aggressive growth is the amount of money they've
raised, which they have been and will continue to put to use on lawyer fees ;)

------
jessaustin
The CPUC has kowtowed to incumbent providers for decades. The wrinkle in this
case is that the "incumbents" are taxi companies rather than VZN and ATT.

