# The Legal Argument that could destroy Uber is about to be tested.



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Jalopnik: The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested.
https://jalopnik.com/the-legal-argument-that-could-destroy-uber-is-about-to-1838255672


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Can't believe no one is reading and commenting on this important piece from Jalopnik:

*The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested*

On October 23, an arbitrator will sit down in Uber's New York office and hear arguments in a case that could determine the ride-hail giant's future. It is not about the employment status of a single driver, but rather the very legality of Surge Pricing, Uber's flagship feature that adjusts the price of rides according to supply and demand principles.

If the arbitrator rules against Uber, it could, in essence, make Surge Pricing illegal and, more broadly, call into question the legality of Uber's entire business model of controlling the prices hundreds of thousands of independent contractors are permitted to charge.

"This has always been a simple case," said Andy Schmidt, the lawyer who filed the original federal district court action back in late 2015. *"Uber wants to have it both ways."*

And now, after almost four years, this "simple case" faces a big test. *It's the first time anyone is actually going to rule on whether Uber is violating the antitrust law.*

The case, which originated as _Meyer v. Kalanick_ in 2015, was indeed a simple one: Uber's drivers are independent contractors, a legal distinction Uber views as central to its business model. Yet Uber also sets the price that all those independent contractors must charge for their businesses. When a bunch of independent businesses agree to charge the same price for a product or service, that is generally called price fixing, and price fixing is very much illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

But, thanks to the arbitration clause in Uber's terms and conditions, Judge Jed S. Rakoff was forced to kick the case to arbitration in 2017, a decision he made with little joy, wryly noting in a later ruling "This being the law, this judge must enforce it-even if it is based on nothing but factual and legal fictions."

Yet, in March 2018, Rakoff made a far more more important ruling. Rakoff denied Uber's motion to dismiss Meyer's claims for "declaratory and injunctive relief." Critically, this meant the arbitrator's ruling would not merely apply to the one plaintiff in the case.

It could be taken back to the district court and applied to Uber's entire business across the entire United States. So, if the arbitrator found Surge Pricing was a violation of antitrust law, Meyer's lawyers could take that back to the district court.

An Uber spokesperson told Jalopnik that "

"We believe the law is on our side and that's why in four years no anti-trust agency has raised this as an issue and there has been no similar litigation like it in the U.S."

Marshall Steinbaum, an economics professor at the University of Utah who studies the intersection of labor markets and antitrust law, told Jalopnik that the implications of a ruling against Uber "would be profound-a nationwide injunction against Surge Pricing."

Not only would such a ruling be profound, but Rakoff's previous rulings and the opinion of legal experts suggest Uber may very well lose.

First, there is Rakoff's initial ruling in March of 2016, which was broadly receptive to the plaintiff's case of an antitrust violation.

Rakoff went on to find "In the Court's view, these allegations of legal theory, when coupled with the allegations of pertinent facts, are sufficient to plead a vertical conspiracy theory" and that "Consequently, the Court finds that plaintiff has presented a plausible claim of a vertical conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act."

At least some legal scholars agree; indeed, have been calling on the courts to take up the issue for years.

*Sanjukta Paul, a law professor at Wayne State University, has previously argued Uber likely runs afoul of price fixing laws. And for his part, Steinbaum also sees this case against Uber as viable.

"My view is that the claim that Uber orchestrates a price-fixing conspiracy is a strong one," Steinbaum wrote to Jalopnik over email. "They set prices for millions of bilateral transactions between drivers and riders, and just because the prices are set by app and algorithm doesn't mean they're not subject to laws against price-fixing."*

This is hardly the only existential threat Uber is facing from the courts. Uber will have to fight the price-fixing case at the same time as it strengthens its legal arguments in California against AB5, the law which goes into effect in January and creates a much stricter test for whether workers are independent contractors.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Can't believe no one is reading and commenting on this important piece from Jalopnik:
> 
> *The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested*
> 
> ...


I saw the same article in LA. Orange County.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

The only way it's not price fixing is if drivers are employees. If drivers are independent contractors, then it's price fixing. 

It's clear as day.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

observer said:


> I saw the same article in LA. Orange County.


I just pulled it from the link you posted - the author is credited as: "Senior Reporter, Investigations & Technology, Jalopnik "
I didn't know about the 10/23 hearing in NYC... wow.



uberdriverfornow said:


> The only way it's not price fixing is if drivers are employees. If drivers are independent contractors, then it's price fixing.
> It's clear as day.


Uber's driver agreement says that their pricing is only the "default" price for a ride to be used in the even that a rider and driver do not negotiate a rate. I called Uber several years ago when I started driving Uber & Lyft to ask how we were to implement a negotiated fare. The Uber rep told me that while that's what it says in our partner agreement, if I tried to implement a negotiated fare I'd be deactivated.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uber's driver agreement says that their pricing is only the "default" price for a ride to be used in the even that a rider and driver do not negotiate a rate. I called Uber several years ago when I started driving Uber & Lyft to ask how we were to implement a negotiated fare. The Uber rep told me that while that's what it says in our partner agreement, if I tried to implement a negotiated fare I'd be deactivated.


exactly, Uber deliberately speaks both ways so they can always spin their argument each way it benefits them at that particular moment when arguing cases like these

they act like they are collecting payment on our behalf which couldn't be any further from the truth when they no longer even take a fixed percentage of what the pax pays

the crazy thing is that this case could kill surge pricing nationwide

it's interesting to think that that could actually benefit drivers since we rarely get any surge money anymore anyhow


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> that could actually benefit drivers since we rarely get any surge money anymore anyhow


hey - speak fer yerself there kiddo - unless I'm a good mood (and I'm never in a good mood):
No Surge (or $ tag) - No Ride! lol


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

The next thing that Uber will claim is that they don't set the prices and are not subject to this action.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bob Reynolds said:


> The next thing that Uber will claim is that they don't set the prices and are not subject to this action.


Exactly - and they can prove it by showing an arbitrator or a judge or a jury a copy of their driver agreement!
("_Of course they're Independent Contractors, your honor, it's says so right here in the agreement we made them all sign before they could use the app to go online and get rides_")


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Also those quoted prices are not the real prices--they're just estimates.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> call into question the legality of Uber's entire business model of controlling the prices hundreds of thousands of independent contractors are permitted to charge.


Outside of surge, this is the most interesting piece of the puzzle.

In other words: Could the court force it so drivers are allowed to set ride prices as a contractor? That could provoke the ultimate race to the bottom.
"Yeah man I smoked all the others - I set my Uber price at 40 cents a mile and get _alllll_ the rides but I do it to hustle my cocaine business on the side!"
"Goddammit Checo you're embodying a 1970s stereotype harmful to our community"


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Can't believe no one is reading and commenting on this important piece from Jalopnik:
> 
> *The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested*
> 
> ...


As Uber has stated: Majority of drivers are PT. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Bob Reynolds said:


> The next thing that Uber will claim is that they don't set the prices and are not subject to this action.


yep, all they do is lie, it's really insane how much they lie

atleast it looks like a judge is finally going to rip them apart for it


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> yep, all they do is lie, it's really insane how much they lie
> 
> atleast it looks like a judge is finally going to rip them apart for it


about time


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

Cold Fusion said:


> As Uber has stated: Majority of drivers are PT. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


They might if the Part-Timers walk away due to a market shift and leave a big coverage hole during key times of the day. Intense area coverage is a big part of both TNCs' strategies to be the competitive option for riders.


----------



## Paladin220 (Jun 2, 2017)

So if it's illegal for uber to surge prices, how is it ok for the city of Chicago to surge parking meter rates around busy events? Guess you don't have to follow the rules if you make the rules?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Cold Fusion said:


> As Uber has stated: Majority of drivers are PT. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


I don't think that's the answer (unless you're talking about you personally, of course)
Too many people think this a black or white issue when the reality is that there are millions of drivers, each who drive with different goals and ideas of how they want to be treated (ie: employee v IC). Any 'good' solution is going to have to address at least those two options.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

I always though surge was a way to scam customers and taxis never did this that I ever heard of. Certainly not as fragrantly as Uber has such as the $500 New Years Eve ride stories.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Can't believe no one is reading and commenting on this important piece from Jalopnik:
> 
> *The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested*
> 
> ...


Great article.

Surge pricing for water and gasoline before a storm comes to mind.

Also, how does a technology company set market rates?


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

It seems that U/L could change their model to eBay. The customer selects his pickup & destination, and there is a listing of drivers, with their car model and satisfaction score, and of course the price they are willing to hustle for.

Call it UberBay.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Paladin220 said:


> So if it's illegal for uber to surge prices, how is it ok for the city of Chicago to surge parking meter rates around busy events? Guess you don't have to follow the rules if you make the rules?


That's absurd. Of course you don't have to follow the rules if you make them
Look at Congress.
Look at CA AB-5!!


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's absurd. Of course you don't have to follow the rules if yo amke them
> Look at Congress.
> Look at CA AB-5!!


This akin to the idea that the government has a monopoly on the legal use of violence.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> how does a technology company set market rates?


Easy: illegal data acquisition and manipulation!! lol 
Isn't that what Uber does as a tech company?


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Bob Reynolds said:


> The next thing that Uber will claim is that they don't set the prices and are not subject to this action.


I seem to recall reading something in the terms that we can set a lower price, but not a higher price than the in-app price. In older versions of the app I think there was a way to issue a partial refund.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> I seem to recall reading something in the terms that we can set a lower price, but not a higher price than the in-app price. In older versions of the app I think there was a way to issue a partial refund.


That's correct - but more Uberspeak: they can't tell an IC that they are allowed to negotiate a price with their own customer - and then restrict that 'private' negotiation to only a lower price - lol! If Uber tried to enforce that in a court they would be laughed at by a judge. Either the IC drive and Rider have a direct relationship in which they can negotiate a fare - or they don't. Higher or lower than Uber's 'default' suggested fare is irrelevant.


----------



## MoreTips (Feb 13, 2017)

Uber trying to claim they are essentially the same as Square, just processing a transaction between buyer and seller should be called out. So ridiculous what they have gotten away with no one would of believed possible. 

When asked by riders my opinion on Uber and the idea of it being a good investment, I have been honest. Stating much of what we discuss here. My point that best answers their question is about Uber's reputation. When I started close to 3 years ago you couldn't find a negative media story, it was all about this great new idea, great for all sides. Except for those early drivers that came long before me, they had already had the taste of cut after cut, they knew were things were headed but with each cut they thought "It can't get any worse". 
Just like me and the new drivers of today we have to see it for ourselves.

Today just about everyone has heard of Uber and some know of it's dark side, the public's opinion is slowly changing. The pressure on Uber and Lyft is growing as they try to squeeze as much as they can before its game over. Rideshare will continue but change is coming, hopefully to our benefit. We will see.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

MoreTips said:


> Uber trying to claim they are essentially the same as Square, just processing a transaction between buyer and seller should be called out. So ridiculous what they have gotten away with no one would of believed possible.
> 
> When asked by riders my opinion on Uber and the idea of it being a good investment, I have been honest. Stating much of what we discuss here. My point that best answers their question is about Uber's reputation. When I started close to 3 years ago you couldn't find a negative media story, it was all about this great new idea, great for all sides. Except for those early drivers that came long before me, they had already had the taste of cut after cut, they knew were things were headed but with each cut they thought "It can't get any worse".
> Just like me and the new drivers of today we have to see it for ourselves.
> ...


Please, stop posting considered, well presented, reasonable opinions.
You're going to skew the average.
(_shoot - did I just say that outloud?_)


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

jeanocelot said:


> It seems that U/L could change their model to eBay. The customer selects his pickup & destination, and there is a listing of drivers, with their car model and satisfaction score, and of course the price they are willing to hustle for.
> 
> Call it UberBay.


We'd kill for that kind of info


----------



## 2smart2drive (Jul 9, 2019)

observer said:


> Jalopnik: The Legal Argument That Could Destroy Uber Is About To Be Tested.
> https://jalopnik.com/the-legal-argument-that-could-destroy-uber-is-about-to-1838255672


Arbitration decisions are unenforceable outside a singe case brought up in front of some retiree judge... Unlike the 'sticky' surge guarantee, LOL - Arbitration's decision won't 'stick' to other cases with similar-issues and needs to be brought up AGAIN & AGAIN every time someone else is affected: on a per-case capacity of a single-body individual.

Class-action suits filed with state / federal courts have broader 'enforceable'
powers, but still must be signed into law to actually (and eventually) CHANGE things / issues.

Otherwise, even class-action judgements - presumed to 'teach an expensive lesson' and prevent corporations from repeating wrongdoings - pay, mostly, into state / federal funds as punitive fines, and to lawyers / law groups admin. teams - not to aggrieved partied:

From tens of millions $$$ awarded, each 'Joe Applesauce' from class-action's list will get $20 loss reimbursed, LOL.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

2smart2drive said:


> Arbitration decisions are unenforceable outside a singe case brought up in front of some retiree judge... Unlike the 'sticky' surge guarantee, LOL - Arbitration's decision won't 'stick' to other cases with similar-issues and needs to be brought up AGAIN & AGAIN every time someone else is affected: on a per-case capacity of a single-body individual.
> 
> Class-action suits filed with state / federal courts have broader 'enforceable'
> powers, but still must be signed into law to actually (and eventually) CHANGE things / issues.
> ...


"It could be taken back to the district court and applied to Uber's entire business across the entire United States. So, if the arbitrator found Surge Pricing was a violation of antitrust law, Meyer's lawyers could take that back to the district court."


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I just pulled it from the link you posted - the author is credited as: "Senior Reporter, Investigations & Technology, Jalopnik "
> I didn't know about the 10/23 hearing in NYC... wow.
> 
> 
> Uber's driver agreement says that their pricing is only the "default" price for a ride to be used in the even that a rider and driver do not negotiate a rate. I called Uber several years ago when I started driving Uber & Lyft to ask how we were to implement a negotiated fare. The Uber rep told me that while that's what it says in our partner agreement, if I tried to implement a negotiated fare I'd be deactivated.


Thanks for that. I've had it in my head to send uber a service price menu for my driving services to be applied to the rides I take. I've been considering that for a while now, and I've only not done it because I'm relatively certain the second I did I would stop receiving pings.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

I don't remember reading any of you guys complaining when you were getting those 8.3x surge rides and rates were $2/mile.
In fact I remember a lot of brag posts. 
If fact, you are calling for and would settle for the "old days" and rates, illegal or not.
Let's not pretend it's about principle. It's about the almighty dollar. 
It was as illegal then, as it is now.
You all took advantage when it suited you. You supported the Uber lies.
You all rode the gravy train.
Now rates are lower. Surge is all but gone. Getting the money is tough.
NOW you all come out, and suddenly all have principles.
Gimme a break.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I don't remember reading any of you guys complaining when you were getting those 8.3x surge rides and rates were $2/mile.
> In fact I remember a lot of brag posts.


So you remember that, well, I suppose a fair reading would mean I have to agree with you there a lot did sort of rejoice in the large surge fares, but I mean who wouldn't be happy they were making more money? It's kind of like a bonus really, and most people kind of like bonuses right? I know I do.

But you know what both of us have read on here far more than what you claim as 'brag posts', it's those same drivers saying don't chase the surge.

I didn't chase surges nor do I chase dollar taged red zones, or quests, and I certainly never made them an integral part of my earnings strategy, or any part for that matter. I think you'll find that the drivers who did that aren't really around any more on here, but, you know, I could be mistaken.


----------



## GreatWhiteHope (Sep 18, 2018)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's absurd. Of course you don't have to follow the rules if you make them
> Look at Congress.
> Look at CA AB-5!!


Seems like nonsense

Surge pricing is supply and demand


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I don't remember reading any of you guys complaining when you were getting those 8.3x surge rides and rates were $2/mile.
> In fact I remember a lot of brag posts.
> If fact, you are calling for and would settle for the "old days" and rates, illegal or not.
> Let's not pretend it's about principle. It's about the almighty dollar.
> ...


That hurt, because you were dead on.

But honestly surging needs to die, and be replaced with a unified consistent rates that one can make a living wage on.

And guess what... pings will draw drivers,

Lack of pings will send drivers home.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

2smart2drive said:


> Arbitration decisions are unenforceable outside a singe case brought up in front of some retiree judge... Unlike the 'sticky' surge guarantee, LOL - Arbitration's decision won't 'stick' to other cases with similar-issues and needs to be brought up AGAIN & AGAIN every time someone else is affected: on a per-case capacity of a single-body individual.
> 
> Class-action suits filed with state / federal courts have broader 'enforceable'
> powers, but still must be signed into law to actually (and eventually) CHANGE things / issues.
> ...


I just received a check for over $500.

And, according to the article...

》》》...in March 2018, Rakoff made a far more more important ruling. Rakoff denied Uber's motion to dismiss Meyer's claims for "declaratory and injunctive relief." Critically, this meant the arbitrator's ruling would not merely apply to the one plaintiff in the case.《《《




GreatWhiteHope said:


> Seems like nonsense
> Surge pricing is supply and demand


What does that have to do with those who make the rules exempting themselves from the rules they make? oh, sorry, now I see your point. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's the function of supply and demand that is in question but rather the idea that one company can fix the price Hi-Lo or anywhere in between for millions of independent contractors who are driving.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

observer said:


> "It could be taken back to the district court and applied to Uber's entire business across the entire United States. So, if the arbitrator found Surge Pricing was a violation of antitrust law, Meyer's lawyers could take that back to the district court."


Do you know who the arbitrator is? And what happens if it's not a violation of antitrust law?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I don't remember reading any of you guys complaining when you were getting those 8.3x surge rides and rates were $2/mile.
> In fact I remember a lot of brag posts.
> If fact, you are calling for and would settle for the "old days" and rates, illegal or not.
> Let's not pretend it's about principle. It's about the almighty dollar.
> ...


we also had absolutely no control and we're not the ones who set the pricing legal or illegal.

But more importantly, you missed the point. Those 8.x-point surges didn't go away, Uber is still charging the passenger those rates. What they changed is they are not sharing that in the same manner with drivers as they used to. As far as I'm concerned, I think drivers have every right in the world to complain.

*"In other words, there's an argument to be made that Uber is doing the very price-fixing it says drivers can't do; and the price it fixes is for a service it contends it doesn't sell."*​"


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

I hope that both companies fold. Hopefully Kosrowski and Kalanick, when they kick the bucket, will have to spend eternity driving round hell on a never ending Pool ride, picking up and dropping off a heavily drunk Satan and minions. In a Prius.


----------



## Roadmasta (Aug 4, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I just pulled it from the link you posted - the author is credited as: "Senior Reporter, Investigations & Technology, Jalopnik "
> I didn't know about the 10/23 hearing in NYC... wow.
> 
> 
> Uber's driver agreement says that their pricing is only the "default" price for a ride to be used in the even that a rider and driver do not negotiate a rate. I called Uber several years ago when I started driving Uber & Lyft to ask how we were to implement a negotiated fare. The Uber rep told me that while that's what it says in our partner agreement, if I tried to implement a negotiated fare I'd be deactivated.


Can you pull up that response? Send it to the law firm in NY


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Roadmasta said:


> Can you pull up that response? Send it to the law firm in NY


You have to trust and know that the lawyers are not stupid. What I described is written right there in the driver agreement. These attorneys speak with hundreds of drivers and ask them about how they perceive the agreement they entered into. This is not the first time I had mentioned this particular incident here in the forums. If someone needs to get hold of me about it, I'm sure they would.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

XPG said:


> Do you know who the arbitrator is? And what happens if it's not a violation of antitrust law?


No idea.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> As Uber has stated: Majority of drivers are PT. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


Majority of pro-Uber posters here are shills. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the crazy thing is that this case could kill surge pricing nationwide
> it's interesting to think that that could actually benefit drivers since we rarely get any surge money anymore anyhow


Arbitration ruling in NYC will have no impact on other states. You'd have to sue in each state under each state's laws before going to federal courts...if it does.



Taxi2Uber said:


> I don't remember reading any of you guys complaining when you were getting those 8.3x surge rides and rates were $2/mile.
> In fact I remember a lot of brag posts.


it is odd that people like making more money, and tend to work poor hours or with uncooperative riders to make more money. shocking.



Taxi2Uber said:


> It was as illegal then, as it is now.


No court or law says it is illegal. You saying "it's illegal" is just your wish.



Taxi2Uber said:


> NOW you all come out, and suddenly all have principles.
> Gimme a break.


I think drivers who often have been cheated by fuber/gryft have expressed joy that they may lose a lot of money that they no longer share with drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RaleighUber said:


> Arbitration ruling in NYC will have no impact on other states. You'd have to sue in each state under each state's laws before going to federal courts...if it does.


the article says otherwise


----------



## Aneed Momoney (Apr 3, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Majority of pro-Uber posters here are shills. Subsequently, really don't care where the pieces land


probably paid shills at that. Nice use of the shareholder's money


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> I hope that both companies fold. Hopefully Kosrowski and Kalanick, when they kick the bucket, will have to spend eternity driving round hell on a never ending Pool ride, picking up and dropping off a heavily drunk Satan and minions. In a Prius.


Smelly minions.


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the article says otherwise


Actually, it does not. It hides it a bit, but it says exactly what I said. Here are the relevant quotes from the article:

Article: "If the arbitrator rules against Uber, it could, in essence, make Surge Pricing illegal and, more broadly..."
Notice the "if" and "it could" and "in essence" ....all conditionals. It would mean that the one arbitration case, Uber loses. It does not affect NY Law because it is NOT a NY court....but let's go on.

From the article: "So, if the arbitrator found Surge Pricing was a violation of antitrust law, Meyer's lawyers could take that back to the district court."
Note again, the "could." Arbitration is not law. The plaintiff would have to go BACK to NY district court, have the court accept the arbitration ruling (Uber contests) and only then would it apply as one precedent in NY state.

Again, IF Uber loses the arbitration, then there are still a number of court battles to be lost before this applies to anyone outside of that plaintiff.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

What if Uber already bought the arbitrator?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RaleighUber said:


> Actually, it does not. It hides it a bit, but it says exactly what I said. Here are the relevant quotes from the article:
> 
> Article: "If the arbitrator rules against Uber, it could, in essence, make Surge Pricing illegal and, more broadly..."
> Notice the "if" and "it could" and "in essence" ....all conditionals. It would mean that the one arbitration case, Uber loses. It does not affect NY Law because it is NOT a NY court....but let's go on.
> ...


Yes, it does. You are acting like because it says "could" that that somehow invalidates any possibility of it happening, which is absurd.



> It could be taken back to the district court and applied to Uber's entire business across the entire United States.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

On October 23, an "unknown" arbitrator will sit down in Uber's New York office and hear arguments on whether surge pricing is in violation of antitrust law. In a statement to Vice's tech magazine Motherboard, an Uber spokesperson said: "We are confident* the law is on our side* and look forward to the hearing in this case so that we can put plaintiff's unsupported theory to rest once and for all."

Law is on our side? How? They bought the arbitrator?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

XPG said:


> On October 23, an "unknown" arbitrator will sit down in Uber's New York office and hear arguments on whether surge pricing is in violation of antitrust law. In a statement to Vice's tech magazine Motherboard, an Uber spokesperson said: "We are confident* the law is on our side* and look forward to the hearing in this case so that we can put plaintiff's unsupported theory to rest once and for all."
> 
> Law is on our side? How? They bought the arbitrator?


put Uber's untested theory to the test, is what they mean


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, it does. You are acting like because it says "could" that that somehow invalidates any possibility of it happening, which is absurd.


Now you want to flip and pretend I've said it's not a possibility, which is false. You appear to be flailing.

Let me sum up:
You claimed an arbitration would make surge pricing illegal. (ie. certainty). I quoted your source proving the certainty to be false.
I argued it was possible, but required lots of other steps (ie. possibility, but still not probability).
Now you claim I'm saying it's never going to happen (ie. impossibility). Not only didn't I say that, *I laid out some of the numerous steps required* to have the arbitration case move towards your declared end, "surge pricing is illegal." Reading with precision is required.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RaleighUber said:


> Now you want to flip and pretend I've said it's not a possibility, which is false. You appear to be flailing.
> 
> Let me sum up:
> You claimed an arbitration would make surge pricing illegal. (ie. certainty). I quoted your source proving the certainty to be false.
> ...


It's not the arbitration ruling that would make it illegal, only if it makes it up to the Supreme Court as a result of the arbitrators initial ruling.


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It's not the arbitration ruling that would make it illegal, only if it makes it up to the Supreme Court as a result of the arbitrators initial ruling.


Thanks for agreeing with me.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> exactly, Uber deliberately speaks both ways so they can always spin their argument each way it benefits them at that particular moment when arguing cases like these
> 
> they act like they are collecting payment on our behalf which couldn't be any further from the truth when they no longer even take a fixed percentage of what the pax pays
> 
> ...


When Uber dropped percentage earning methodology, they opened the door for this suit.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> That's correct - but more Uberspeak: they can't tell an IC that they are allowed to negotiate a price with their own customer - and then restrict that 'private' negotiation to only a lower price - lol! If Uber tried to enforce that in a court they would be laughed at by a judge. Either the IC drive and Rider have a direct relationship in which they can negotiate a fare - or they don't. Higher or lower than Uber's 'default' suggested fare is irrelevant.


Uber was safe negotiating the rates while sharing the fare. Greed is going to be their undoing.

how sad it would be to die of greed despite never actually living profitably


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RaleighUber said:


> Thanks for agreeing with me.


without the initial arbitration ruling, the Supreme Court would never be able to rule on it, making a ruling that applies across the US

thanks for playing


----------



## RaleighUber (Dec 4, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> without the initial arbitration ruling, the Supreme Court would never be able to rule on it, making a ruling that applies across the US


Yep...your first post was false.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

RaleighUber said:


> Yep...your first post was false.


As false as Trump tells the truth.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The only way it's not price fixing is if drivers are employees. If drivers are independent contractors, then it's price fixing.
> 
> It's clear as day.


So that's the whole point: they can't have it both ways.



Paladin220 said:


> So if it's illegal for uber to surge prices, how is it ok for the city of Chicago to surge parking meter rates around busy events? Guess you don't have to follow the rules if you make the rules?


Parking meters aren't independent contractors. You could argue it's price gouging if there's a hurricane and its water. But no one really needs to park in any one place. So the supply and demand argument works there. Same with travel--more expensive at high demand times.

Regardless, fixing and gouging are two different things.


----------

