5 ms·

And operating illegally. I'm not a fan of how taxis in Australia are operated, but the law was there to prevent unapproved businesses to pick up passenger. Th

And operating illegally. I'm not a fan of how taxis in Australia are operated, but the law was there to prevent unapproved businesses to pick up passenger. The law was ignored and it impacted real people who had owned taxi licence plates, sometimes for generations. At $350k a pop, it was an asset that came under attack.

Pokerface777 3y ago
you think $350k is a fair amount? if anything, the government should have be sued for this non-sense.
resolutebat 3y ago
Won't somebody please think of monopoly rent seekers?
- serial_dev 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    The point is that the "local laws and regulations" were an unjust monopoly. Ride-hires definitely improved the taxi experience from what it was before.
    - rpy 3y ago
      It was a deliberately tightly restricted market to ensure taxi drivers could make a liveable wage. Now the industry is filled with people forced to work two or three jobs to survive and a tech company is capturing profits off the top. That might be a better outcome for customers but it sure doesn’t seem like one for the workers involved.
  - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
    It's amazing that one could care to care about maintaining regulatory capture to such an extent that consumer harm is seen as preferable.
- jeltz 3y ago
  Uber acted in the same shitty way and ran illegal taxis and price dumped even in places which did not have monopolies. This is their modus operandi, illegally enter new markets and then paying the fines and starting to follow the law once caught.
  - mlnj 3y ago
    Exactly. There should be additional penalties each time a parent entity operates this way across regions. Right now 180M is just the cost of doing business in a country for Uber. There is less incentive to not operate illegally for other players.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      Why would you want the other players to not operate illegally?
    - hyperpape 3y ago
      $180M is 10% of Uber’s global net income for 2023. Sure seems like a lot for one country. Also, it looks like it wasn’t even for Australia as a whole, just one state?
      - mlnj 3y ago
        Uber's global revenue was $22.5B in just the year 2023. This class action lawsuit has been dragging on since 2019. I completely get the 'regulatory capture' aspect everyone is supporting Uber for but breaking laws and regulations as a M.O. needs to be dealt with more than a slap on the wrist.
        Staple_Diet 3y ago
        That's revenue my man. Uber's last quarter income from operations was $658m. So $180m isn't far off 10%. Also look at same time the year before, they are way in the hole. This fine will hurt them (if they ever have to pay it). https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2024/Uber-Announces-Results-for-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023/default.aspx https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-det...
martyvis 3y ago
It only was an "asset" because they created a restricted supply oligopoly. Somehow they were being rewarded for very ordinary service. Uber created a necessary disruption to shake up the identity.
- rvnx 3y ago
  Licences could be non-transferable, to solve this "market". In many jurisdictions these licences are given for free by the government, and can be sold 150k/200k+.
barrkel 3y ago
That asset value is made out of rent. It has baked into it an assumption of market inefficiencies in the form of excess profits.

Pokerface777 3y ago

you think $350k is a fair amount? if anything, the government should have be sued for this non-sense.

resolutebat 3y ago

Won't somebody please think of monopoly rent seekers?

serial_dev 3y ago
[flagged]
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  The point is that the "local laws and regulations" were an unjust monopoly. Ride-hires definitely improved the taxi experience from what it was before.
  - rpy 3y ago
    It was a deliberately tightly restricted market to ensure taxi drivers could make a liveable wage. Now the industry is filled with people forced to work two or three jobs to survive and a tech company is capturing profits off the top. That might be a better outcome for customers but it sure doesn’t seem like one for the workers involved.
- AlchemistCamp 3y ago
  It's amazing that one could care to care about maintaining regulatory capture to such an extent that consumer harm is seen as preferable.
jeltz 3y ago
Uber acted in the same shitty way and ran illegal taxis and price dumped even in places which did not have monopolies. This is their modus operandi, illegally enter new markets and then paying the fines and starting to follow the law once caught.
- mlnj 3y ago
  Exactly. There should be additional penalties each time a parent entity operates this way across regions. Right now 180M is just the cost of doing business in a country for Uber. There is less incentive to not operate illegally for other players.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    Why would you want the other players to not operate illegally?
  - hyperpape 3y ago
    $180M is 10% of Uber’s global net income for 2023. Sure seems like a lot for one country. Also, it looks like it wasn’t even for Australia as a whole, just one state?
    - mlnj 3y ago
      Uber's global revenue was $22.5B in just the year 2023. This class action lawsuit has been dragging on since 2019. I completely get the 'regulatory capture' aspect everyone is supporting Uber for but breaking laws and regulations as a M.O. needs to be dealt with more than a slap on the wrist.
      - Staple_Diet 3y ago
        That's revenue my man. Uber's last quarter income from operations was $658m. So $180m isn't far off 10%. Also look at same time the year before, they are way in the hole. This fine will hurt them (if they ever have to pay it). https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2024/Uber-Announces-Results-for-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2023/default.aspx https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-det...

martyvis 3y ago

It only was an "asset" because they created a restricted supply oligopoly. Somehow they were being rewarded for very ordinary service. Uber created a necessary disruption to shake up the identity.

rvnx 3y ago
Licences could be non-transferable, to solve this "market". In many jurisdictions these licences are given for free by the government, and can be sold 150k/200k+.

barrkel 3y ago

That asset value is made out of rent. It has baked into it an assumption of market inefficiencies in the form of excess profits.