
San Francisco and L.A. sue Uber - vivekpreddy
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27102694/biz-break-san-francisco-and-l-sue-uber
======
Fede_V
I am not a lawyer, and have absolutely no meaningful opinion on the merits of
this lawsuit. However, Uber has absolutely not helped their case by having
executives act like frat bros.

As much as we'd like to think that the law and public opinion are separate, in
reality, I think that if Uber had tried to be a better 'public citizen' they
probably wouldn't be facing so much backlash.

That essay by Paul Graham about 'mean people' is looking downright prophetic
right about now.

~~~
flexie
Yeah. Let's see how it plays out :-)

I remember how the music industry teamed up with politicians, and used police
and courts to go after Napster and KaZaA. The founders of those companies were
considered thugs by the establishment back then - thieves even.

Later, one of the Napster guys made money on Facebook and the KaZaA duo made
money on Skype. Now they are all considered superhero entrepreneurs.

Napster and KaZaA didn't make much money but the next generation downloading
and streaming apps such as iTunes, Spotify etc. did and personally I haven't
bought a CD for years.

Maybe Uber will go down in lawsuits and prohibitions, maybe not, but the taxi
industry has already been disrupted and if Uber doesn't defeat the taxis,
other companies will. People have been shown much more comfortable and cheaper
ways of getting a ride.

Just like I don't want to bother paying $20 going to the mall to buy 11 crappy
songs on a disc in order to get that one song that I want to listen to, taxi
riders don't want to bother with the expensive taxi tsars of their hometown.

Personally, I don't care if Uber or another nicer or more legal alternative
wins. As long as the taxi companies lose.

~~~
mironathetin
"Personally, I don't care if Uber or another nicer or more legal alternative
wins. As long as the taxi companies lose."

Agreed. In my home town taxis break every rule that you can imagine in the
name of their precious business. I've seen them ignoring priorities, bicycles,
pedestrians, speed limits, I've seen taxis using walkways and bike lanes to
avoid red lights. Indicating the direction is out of fashion since long.

My last taxis ride to the airport was with 180 km/h on a street with 100 km/h
limit while the driver was flipping through a folder on his dashboard in order
to organize - whatever - with his company. Not to speak about the noise of
taxis dashing through the town at 3 in the morning.

Yes, I don't like what I read about uber, but alternatives for taxis are
overdue.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Damn, but given all that, how does everyone else drive? Is it the taxis being
especially reckless, or is there a car culture of recklessness because the
police aren't around enforcing traffic rules? In most asian countries, at
least, if the taxis are reckless, everyone else is also.

~~~
mironathetin
;o) Taxis are worst. Everyone else has much more respect, although, everything
that is done by taxi drivers can also be seen from others, but rarely.

Police does not have sufficient personnel to catch them all. But I think,
because with their drivers license taxi drivers would lose their job, the
police looks away much more (this is a pure guess). Taxi drivers are also well
connected and have their police info system. That is a fact,as you hear it,
when you use a taxi. There is constant exchange about traffic control over
radio.

Do the uber guys have a taxi driver background and are used to being reckless?
:o)

------
chdir
To all those who think that this is a witch hunt against Uber, here's a
glaring example of Uber compromising safety of their passengers. Had they
taken timely action...

[https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542063133809192960](https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542063133809192960)

The lady was on TV saying that she had complained about the creepy driver to
Uber, a few days before he committed the dastardly act. They gave an assurance
but failed to act, which resulted in something much worse. Granted that the
bigger culprit is the police here who let go off the individual despite his
previous run-ins with the law. But Uber has absolutely failed the trust here.
Just goes out to show that they care about $$ above everything else.

Response from Uber:
[https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542352404478713857](https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542352404478713857)

News coverage: [http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-
here/woman-c...](http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/woman-
complained-about-rapist-driver-in-november-uber-ignored/347939?pfrom=home-
lateststories)

(Credit goes to a comment down below for first mentioning this)

~~~
jfoster
What makes us think that they didn't check on him? It would be harsh of Uber
to suspend/terminate a driver from one complaint, and what kind of check could
they have done to detect that he would attack passengers in this way in the
future?

In any case, I think it's important to consider how this would play out in a
pre-Uber world. If someone took a taxi ride and got attacked by the driver
prior to Uber, there was very little evidence pointing to that driver.
Passengers would need to remember their identification details or number plate
after an event that tends to leave people quite mentally shaken. Not a good
outcome; I think there's a good chance they would still be searching for the
driver if this hadn't been facilitated by Uber.

~~~
chdir
If you are a company touting yourself as the 'safer' alternative to
traditional taxis, you should take such complaints very seriously. A
background check on the driver would have shown his previous convictions. They
claim to do background checks [1], but in reality they skip it [2], atleast
that's what happened in Delhi.

They are providing a false sense of security to the passengers.

[1] [https://www.uber.com/safety](https://www.uber.com/safety)

[2] [http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-we-did-not-run-
backgrou...](http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-we-did-not-run-background-
checks-on-4000-drivers-plying-on-delhi-roads-says-uber-2042510)

------
habosa
Uber is an amazing customer experience (same with Lyft, etc) but I am really
worried about the precedent being set here.

Every step of Uber's success has been associated with some sort of law
breaking. In each new market they ignore the established taxi/limo laws, and
in some they ignore more serious laws (background checks, etc). The individual
offenses are small and generally non-serious (unlicensed taxi driving, illegal
fees) but when you zoom out you see that this is a company systematically
encouraging thousands of small crimes every day. When you realize that the
behavior comes from the top, you can aggregate the wrongdoing into something
pretty serious.

At first this was kind of 'cute'. We were all rooting for the little startup
who said no to an old system and tried to create something better. Uber is now
a huge company. They have secured over $2B in funding and probably intending
to IPO with a market cap over $50B. Yet they have not slowed down with the law
breaking and general disregard for "the rules".

How can this be OK? When will we force them to be mature and obey the laws. I
have to obey the law in my every day life. More importantly, I would be
terrified if other companies with similar market caps (airlines, rental car
companies, media companies) started ignoring the law left and right. If money
and investors can make you above the law then there is no protection for the
rest of us.

I really want Uber as a service to exist, as I said. They provide a great
convenience for me. However I don't think it's acceptable that they get to
ignore the established rules. The laws are there for a reason. If they are bad
laws, then we can work to change them. No amount of VC funding should make you
immune to their reach.

~~~
murbard2
"How can this be OK?"

There is no moral duty to obey unjust laws.

~~~
habosa
What happens when Uber decides it does not respect a more serious law, one
that you believe should be upheld. Who will stop them then?

~~~
murbard2
I think your point is that some amount of unconditional respect for the law is
desirable, because it works as an enforcement mechanism. Is that right? Even
if it is desirable, it does not mean that there is a duty to obey unjust laws.
After all, saving children from starvation is desirable, yet most people
consider they have no duty to do so.

Besides, I think that societies overwhelmingly err far on the side of too much
respect for the law. Most people are content to form their opinions based on
the status quo, which can make for some terrifying dystopian results.

------
emodendroket
Uber is an unlicensed livery service with a smartphone app; I don't know why
everyone is pretending they're providing such an innovative and new service.
If Uber is allowed to operate in blatant disregard of the law, the law should
be changed so their competitors are afforded the same privilege.
Alternatively, Uber should be made to comply to the laws their competitors
have to.

This article doesn't even get into it, but beyond background checks, their not
having medallions is a huge, unfair advantage; their labor practices are
exploitative and probably illegal; and their insurance policies are not
adequate.

~~~
javajosh
Uber created a marketplace and provided both buyers and sellers with a tool to
participate in that market with minimal friction, mainly by taking advantage
of GPS radios in people's devices. I, for one, consider this to be rather
innovative and clever.

(Note that you can minimize anything with word choice. "Google is just a web
spider that looks at links," or "Clojure is just a lisp that runs on the JVM,"
etc.)

~~~
ulfw
How is this 'market place' any different from the old school calling-a-taxi
company and they radio in "Hey, there is a customer on the corner of 3rd and
Broadway" and then the taxi goes there to pick you up?

It's incremental. Not innovation.

------
ryguytilidie
"These companies can be innovative in the way they deliver services without
ignoring the laws that protect the public."

Actually pretty solid advice for Silicon Valley.

~~~
baddox
Does anyone honestly believe that the innovation and disruption caused by Uber
and its competitors would have happened without ignoring laws that supposedly
protect the public?

~~~
pico303
By "disruption", you mean skipping the insurance, background checks, and
licensing to carry passengers?

This isn't innovation. It's gypsy cabs with an iPhone app.

~~~
ghshephard
"Licensing to carry passengers" is definitely something I want to see
disrupted. There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver
"licensed to carry passengers."

It certainly doesn't provide any assurance of quality (as indicated by the
_horrible_ drivers and customer service one gets from Taxi Drivers on the
Peninsula).

I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car
Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically
anything that is in place to protect _consumer_ safety, instead of there to
protect _incumbents market ownership_.

For example - in London, acquisition of "The Knowledge" is not there to
protect consumers, it's there to reduce the amount of competition. I would
absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber
driver.

And, as one who has taken thousands of taxi-rides, I can tell you that
Uber/Lyft are not just innovation, they are mind-blowing revolutionary
disruptive innovation to this industry. They are a much bigger deal for cab
rides, than the iPhone was for the smart phone.

~~~
antihero
> they are mind-blowing revolutionary disruptive innovation to this industry.

Why, because you can order and pay through an app? And they can offer lower
prices as they're skirting the rules?

~~~
ghshephard
The major reasons why Uber/Lyft changed my life when ordering taxis:

o Single Contact point - I don't have to power dial a bunch of different
services, or try and find out who is currently picking up in my region.

o Always, Always, Always a driver available. There were so many times when I
just could never get a pickup on the peninsula. With Uber/Lyft, no matter how
busy it is, or what concerts are playing, I can always get a ride. 100% of the
time. (And yes, I know surge pricing makes those rides pricey, but I would
_much_ rather pay 3x or 4x and have a ride in 5 minutes than spend an hour to
90 minutes waiting for a cab. )

o When the driver/dispatch claims they are on the way - they always show up.
Not only do they always show up, they show up reasonably on time. And, better
yet, I can see if they are moving in my direction. That real-time car location
technology is a major innovation.

o The feedback mechanism means I haven't been picked up by one psycho, or in
one half-broken down vehicle yet. I'm not claiming they haven't existed on
Uber/Lyft, I'm certain they have. But, those types of drives will be downvoted
so quickly they'll cease to be a driver very quickly. With Taxis, I had a
_ton_ of drivers on the peninsula I dreaded being picked up by. One of them
was frequently undergoing some weird psychotic episodes which had him shouting
out to voices. Another was just an asshole. I frequently got into old cars
with non-working windows, and often doors that would not open from the inside.

o No screwing around having to "pay through an app" \- you don't pay - you
just book your ride and get out at your destination. Particularly when you
have a bunch of bags and stuff - that's awesome.

These are just a few of the reasons why Uber/Lyft changed everything. I can't
believe _anybody_ who frequently took taxis on the Peninsula would claim
otherwise. Price is about #7 or #8 on the list.

------
marcell
Quoting the article:

"I don't know if this is legally feasible, but my inclination would be to
allow Lyft here a long time before Uber," the commissioner of Portland's
Bureau of Transportation, told the Times. "Lyft seems like a respectable
company, and Uber seems like a bunch of thugs."

It is a bit shocking to hear a public regulator talk like this. A regulator's
role should not be to pick and choose winners between two (essentially
identical) companies based on personal preference.

~~~
buro9
It's a quote, quotes are usually lacking some context and this doesn't appear
as bad as you make it out.

What if a few missing/implied words were added in that related to earlier
parts of the conversation?

> my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber

becomes

> my inclination _based on the legal interpretation of how these companies
> have operated_ would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber

His quote remains an opinion, the only missing context is whether this opinion
is based on the legal arguments in the case or a purely personal opinion or
external set of information that would show a bias away from the legal
arguments.

He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's
above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law
as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit
(and thus working as many loopholes as possible to 'win' in-spite of the
wishes of the people of the affected cities that they do so in accordance with
the wishes of the people of those cities).

I think this is not shocking at all, it's how it's supposed to be. Shocking is
how some companies wish to ignore the codified will of the people of a city
(or state, or country) purely to turn a dime. And yes, it's also shocking that
some representatives of the people are corrupt as hell and that the written
law has enough holes in it to fly a 747 through.

But a representative of people's tax dollars standing up to ask for companies
who operate within a city to do so in accordance with the wishes of those who
pay the tax dollars is not shocking, it should be the norm

~~~
yummyfajitas
_He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's
above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law
as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit
(and thus working as many loopholes..._

By definition, the _codified_ will of the people is the letter of the law. The
"spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never
actually passed a law for.

Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's
Impossibility Theorem.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem)

~~~
desdiv
Arrow's impossibility theorem only applies to rank order voting systems, not
democracy in general.

~~~
yummyfajitas
At it's core, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that there is no ranked
preference a group larger than 2 with at least 3 policy choices.

I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe
you can explain?

~~~
desdiv
Let's say I like party A 10 times more than I like party B. In a preferential
voting system, there's no way to precisely express my preferences using the
ticket. I'm forced to choose between "1\. A" or "1\. A, 2. B". Someone else
who like part A 2 times more than party B will end up voting identically to
me, despite the huge difference between our preferences. Any preferential
voting system is necessarily flawed because how limited its input is.

That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited
inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three
fairness criteria.

There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by
Arrow's impossibility theorem.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What does it mean to like party A 10x more than party B? What I'm questioning
here is the existence of cardinal preferences, which are necessary for a "will
of the people" to be defined. The only way I can make sense of cardinal
preferences is to treat them as dollars spent on private goods [1], but I
doubt that's what the OP meant.

As it applies to this situation, it's moot - Portland did not express any
cardinal preferences.

[1] Non-private goods introduce other incentives that prevent spending from
tracking desire.

~~~
fugigig
Why fo you think cardinal preferences are necessary!?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that ranked preferences are insufficient.
One stronger assumption you can make is cardinal preferences, which is what
desdiv appealed to.

~~~
asuidyasiud
The point is that invoking an impossibility theorem oftentimes - and also in
this case - demonstrates that the formalization one has chosen to work with is
not a desirable one.

For example, if a group of people by some social process comes to a consensus
then arguably this represents the "will of the people". Thus it makes sense to
reason about this concept without requiring the existence of ranked
preferences.

~~~
yummyfajitas
So for you, "will of the people" represents a consensus preference? And
following this idea, if there is no consensus (i.e., at least one person in
Portland wants to ride an Uber), there is no "will of the people"?

The whole point of Arrow is that you need some very strong assumptions (e.g.,
cardinal preferences) to define a "will of the people". The only real world
expression of cardinal preferences is a set of supply&demand curves, however -
based on this the "will of the people" says Uber should exist.

~~~
asuidyasiud
You misread, I made the converse claim.

~~~
thaumasiotes
"If there is no 'will of the people', then there is no consensus"? That
doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Groups make decisions all the time, but
that doesn't mean those decisions were all endorsed by everyone in the group.
Was splitting off from the Catholic Church to form the Anglican Church really
the will of the people of England? Because there was a consensus.

~~~
asuidyasiud
If a group of people comes together, discusses, and comes by some process to a
unanimous decision ("consensus") then it does usually make a lot of sense to
regard the outcome as the "will of these people".

The point I am trying to make through the last n posts is that Arrow's theorem
does concerns the impossibility of a certain, narrow-minded formalization. It
is therefore incorrect to conclude that 'the "will of the people" is a
nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem', which is what you had
claimed.

I have nothing to say about the people and churches of England.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your claim is that if a unanimous decision has been arrived at, it constitutes
the will of the people. No one disputes this - the case where everyone agrees
is trivial and uninteresting. It also does not describe the situation with
Uber in Portland, Delhi, or anywhere else. I want Uber in Delhi, some
politicians don't. Hence there is no consensus.

You either have a coherent definition of "will of the people" that goes beyond
consensus, or you don't. If you do, give the definition.

~~~
fugigig
For the moment I am content having pointed out the flaw in your argument.

------
choppaface
This article is slightly more helpful:
[http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-
lyf...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-
lyft-20141209-story.html)

It appears the lawsuit is mostly for "false advertising" and (as stated in the
LA Times article) the damages are perhaps in the low dozens of millions. The
complaint perhaps focuses on the background check system.

I can't find a copy of the actual complaint, but looks like it's "business
tort": (via [http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-
services/verify?f=cnq](http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-
services/verify?f=cnq) ) Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Case Number: CGC 14 543120 Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL Cause of Action: BUSINESS
TORT

IMO the Mercury News article spins the magnitude of this lawsuit a bit too
hard. Yes, Uber will probably pay (once again) for its hubris, but it's mostly
gonna be dirt off its shoulders ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HAYkB-
gH0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HAYkB-gH0) ).

------
peteretep

        > Uber's background checks ... have become a worldwide
        > issue: The company was banned in New Delhi ... drivers
        > there had to produce a certificate of strong character
        > signed by police ... a bribe of about $130 would easily
        > garner the document
    

Seems a little unreasonable to lay blame for Indian police corruption at
Uber's door... Can't begin to imagine the level of wailing and gnashing of
teeth if Uber started attempting to run its own private background checks...

~~~
kumarm
A lady reported on Rapist Driver to Uber earlier. Uber ignored:
[https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542063133809192960](https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542063133809192960)

Just because the article is not well written, don't uber is not at fault.

------
LukeFitzpatrick
What I'm surprised about is how much press Uber gets these days. I jump on
Quora, I've easily seen 10 questions in about a week? Went to a startup event
that was hosted by Uber. Have been given Uber discount cards. Likewise, goes
for Twitter too. I've seen bad and good press about Uber. And, of course, I'm
seeing Uber on HN.

I'm really keen to see if their growth startegy works and if they're able to
dominate the industry; or become one of those companies that rises too fast
and falls quickly.

Met a young kid recently, claimed he had the idea for Uber too.. Told him,
it's all about the execution.

I'd expect the lawsuit against Uber will not be the last. They have really got
to keep on top of their legal department to protect stakeholders.

~~~
baddox
I'm more surprised that people still visit Quora, let alone browse it.

~~~
adwn
> _I 'm more surprised that people still visit Quora [...]_

Would you care to explain? (I'm genuinely curious)

~~~
brador
If you're not signed up and in it doesn't show the content. It's the old
expertsexchange style bait and switch trick.

~~~
rtpg
pretty sure expertsExchange required a paying subscription, whereas Quora is
free. Plus cookies mean I'm not signing in every page.

(I mean free as in money, I am OK giving Quora ad dollars and building a
social profile of myself)

~~~
Netminder_EE
Nope. I've been an EE member since 1999 and have never given them a cent. Some
parts of the site are only accessible to Premium Services customers, but it's
not all that difficult to earn them -- so no money out the door.

------
sschueller
Maybe not all hope has been lost and business ethics is something we do care
about.

------
davidw
I think I'd be nervous if I were an Uber investor. There seems to be a lot of
negative news about them lately; that's the kind of thing that can feed on
itself.

~~~
onewaystreet
Tell that to Mark Zuckerberg. Negative press is meaningless when you dominate
your industry. Uber doesn't quite yet, so it must press forward hard. Any
attempt to slow down to appease the media would be foolish.

~~~
anigbrowl
Then again, they might be the new Groupon. Consumers are fickle.

~~~
argonaut
Andrew Mason is still a multi-hundred-millionaire, Eric Lefkofsky is still a
billionaire, and Groupon is still a billion-dollar company.

------
001sky
The political bandwagon begun. Pretty remarkable turn of events. It seems
unlikely the company can go public with this type of legal threat hanging out
there to its business. But with private markets as flush as they are, its also
not clear there are any losers here that the politcians really care about,
either. Sort of fascinating.

------
qmalxp
Pretty sure if a taxi driver was accused of rape in India, no one would bat an
eye.

------
morky
Screwber. Good to see their dickhead antics coming back to bite them in the
form of public backlash.

Go Lyft.

------
nodesocket
Is it me, or does this feel like a witch hunt? What specific laws did or does
Uber break? Does the city really believe that taxi's are more ethical that
Uber or Lyft?

~~~
beedogs
The laws they are accused of violating are listed in the article. Did you read
it, or were you expecting the actual state statute numbers to be listed? Those
are presumably listed in the civil suits.

------
dollar
Uber here is your chance to stand up to a tyrant. Move that shiny headquarters
and your tax domicile to a business friendly jurisdiction, and leave San
Francisco to stew in its nest.

~~~
alex_doom
I won't mind if they leave town at all.

~~~
dollar
I hope they move to my town. Do you see a problem with SF taxing Uber, then
spending Uber's tax money to protect Uber's competitors by suing Uber?

~~~
001sky
There is nothing wrong with government following the law in due course.
Government has the ability by law to tax and spend money to enforce existing
laws. If you don't like that, I suggest you lobby to change the law.

------
TheBiv
Buried within the article, the city claims to have alread settled a half a
million dollar lawsuit with Lyft. hopefully this news source also covered that
lawsuit.

------
beedogs
I may have to move up my Uber death watch. I said they wouldn't exist in five
years; they may not even last five months at this rate.

------
cleanupyouract
Uber is obviously something people want but it is letting its customers become
targets for criminals. That's not sustainable.

------
amelius
I wonder if AirBnB's businessmodel can stand up against the same test.

------
photograve
IMO: I don't really care about the media issues on Uber, what I'm concerned is
that I do love the service and I don't want to see it close.

~~~
higherpurpose
I don't know why some people keep calling them "media issues", as if it's the
media that started an irrational war against Uber, as opposed to them being
_Uber issues_ , due to leadership's attitudes and the seemingly already
ingrained crappy company culture.

~~~
photograve
Sorry, I'm not saying Uber didn't do anything wrong, I mean the media make it
a much bigger problem than it is really. This is true for many subjects.

