10 ms·

San Francisco and L.A. sue Uber

145 points by vivekpreddy 12y ago

peteretep 12y ago
> 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 12y ago
  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.
- kkhire 12y ago
  they just need something to pick on. It's a shame it has come down to this, with all these officials attacking Uber around the same time in an attempt to stifle them
- lukejduncan 12y ago
  There was a pretty good post the other day going around to that effect https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141209160450-9652774-in-defense-of-uber-in-india?trk=object-title https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141209160450-9652774-in-def...
- kmfrk 12y ago
  It already does in America - using a private contractor. (Which is awful, surprise.)
qmalxp 12y ago
Pretty sure if a taxi driver was accused of rape in India, no one would bat an eye.
marcell 12y ago
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.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  You'd be queuing up to praise a financial regulator that cared about the spirit not just letter of the law. Just in this instance the spirit of the law is going against a disruptive tech darling.
- buro9 12y ago
  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
sschueller 12y ago
Maybe not all hope has been lost and business ethics is something we do care about.
davidw 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
  - ryguytilidie 12y ago
    Ex-FB employee here. Honestly most of my old coworkers now seem to be at Uber and doing the same ultra insane seige mentality shit where you convince yourself that you're company is doing the right thing no matter what and that anyone who thinks otherwise are "haters". While this may be a great media/PR strategy, its also a pretty good litmus test as to whether you're a respectable human being imo.
  - davidw 12y ago
    > Negative press is meaningless when you dominate your industry Taxi companies dominate the taxi industry, it seems to me: they're shutting down Uber in more and more places.
    - onewaystreet 12y ago
      As I said, Uber doesn't dominate yet. Which is why they need to spend their time fight the taxis and not the media.
      - davidw 12y ago
        I read it. I think they're a long way from dominating much of anything in some ways, given how easy it is for regulators to shut them down. I'm not anti-Uber or at least anti-disruption for the taxi industry. Here in Italy the taxi lobby is strong and very, very much against any kind of change or liberalization, and can use pretty nasty tactics themselves when they feel threatened.
nodesocket 12y ago
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?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- prawn 12y ago
  "The two officials claim that Uber makes misleading statements about the background checks it performs on drivers and falsely charged a $1 "Safe Rides Fee," among other accusations."
- beedogs 12y ago
  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.
TheBiv 12y ago
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.
ryguytilidie 12y ago
"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.
- kristofferR 12y ago
  But the laws aren't there to protect the public, they're there to protect the taxi companies.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    That's true, especially in US, with that insane and completely irrational "golden medallion" law. However, I have no sympathy left for Uber. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned.
  - ryanobjc 12y ago
    That's so patently false it's ridiculous. The taxi regulations are lengthy and serve multiple purposes. To classify it with a single sentence is just silly. After all, requiring proper operating equipment and frequent inspections obviously doesn't benefit users... Is that what you're really forwarding? I hope not!
    - davidw 12y ago
      "It's complicated", I think, and not clear cut one way or the other. Certainly one-sentence quips favoring one or the other side don't do the issue justice or hint at a reasonable resolution to the problems.
      - ryanobjc 12y ago
        Yes, exactly, it's complicated. I was going to say I expect more out of HN commenters, but then I'd be lying. The people here are perhaps "smarter" than many, but their heads are made out of the same fallible gloopy cholesterol that the rest of us are. Cognitive biases are for everyone, and in some ways worse among those who refuse to admit the essential hormonal/emotional nature of our brains.
photograve 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
LukeFitzpatrick 12y ago
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 12y ago
  I'm more surprised that people still visit Quora, let alone browse it.
  - adwn 12y ago
    > I'm more surprised that people still visit Quora [...] Would you care to explain? (I'm genuinely curious)
    - baddox 12y ago
      It was hyperbole. I obviously didn't believe that literally zero people browse Quora. I just mean that the site feels essentially dead to me. Ever since Google apparently killed their results, I haven't seen any links to a Quora post. I also don't hear any updates about the company, which used to be a regular occurrence around here a couple of years ago.
      - bmajz 12y ago
        I'm subscribed to their email digest. It manages to hook me just about every time with some delightful content. Go figure.
        12y ago
dollar 12y ago
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 12y ago
  I won't mind if they leave town at all.
  - dollar 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
    - davidw 12y ago
      If you flip that around, should paying taxes somehow insulate you from being sued?
    - morky 12y ago
      Yeah thats how laws work mate.
choppaface 12y ago
This article is slightly more helpful: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-lyft-20141209-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-uber-lyf... 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 ).
Fede_V 12y ago
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.
- darkiniaha 12y ago
  I'm genuinely curious about this witch hunt against Uber. Is this Social Justice Warriors vs Uber? Or just invested like Peter Thiel from Lyft doing a coordinated attack against Uber?
- no_future 12y ago
  >That essay by Paul Graham about 'mean people' is looking downright prophetic right about now. None of this crap changes the fact that Uber is a massively successful service and is beloved by consumers. Big companies get sued all the time. Apple(and just about every other company) manufacture the products people love in China where the workers are under horrible conditions, arguably ethically worse than anything Uber has ever done. So no, mean people don't fail any more than any other kind of person does. People just love to hate them.
- flexie 12y ago
  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.
001sky 12y ago
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.
beedogs 12y ago
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.
morky 12y ago
Screwber. Good to see their dickhead antics coming back to bite them in the form of public backlash. Go Lyft.
amelius 12y ago
I wonder if AirBnB's businessmodel can stand up against the same test.
chdir 12y ago
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-complained-about-rapist-driver-in-november-uber-ignored/347939?pfrom=home-lateststories http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/woman-c... (Credit goes to a comment down below for first mentioning this)
- jfoster 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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-background-checks-on-4000-drivers-plying-on-delhi-roads-says-uber-2042510 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-we-did-not-run-backgrou...
emodendroket 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.)
  - dyeje 12y ago
    Regardless of how innovative they are, they're breaking the law.
  - ulfw 12y ago
    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.
- baddox 12y ago
  > I don't know why everyone is pretending they're providing such an innovative and new service. I'm not pretending, I'm reporting empirical observations. Uber provides a service that is really nice, and significantly changed the way I transport myself around town. It is empirically an innovative and new service.
habosa 12y ago
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.
- efsavage 12y ago
  The generally accepted way of changing or challenging a law you believe to be wrong and that provides more rent to it's beneficiaries than it costs to defend it, is to break it, repeatedly. (With apologies to those who fight against things far more onerous than taxi medallions)
- murbard2 12y ago
  "How can this be OK?" There is no moral duty to obey unjust laws.
  - habosa 12y ago
cleanupyouract 12y ago
Uber is obviously something people want but it is letting its customers become targets for criminals. That's not sustainable.

145 points by vivekpreddy 12y ago

> 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 12y ago
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.
kkhire 12y ago
they just need something to pick on. It's a shame it has come down to this, with all these officials attacking Uber around the same time in an attempt to stifle them
lukejduncan 12y ago
There was a pretty good post the other day going around to that effect https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141209160450-9652774-in-defense-of-uber-in-india?trk=object-title https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141209160450-9652774-in-def...
kmfrk 12y ago
It already does in America - using a private contractor. (Which is awful, surprise.)

qmalxp 12y ago

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

marcell 12y ago

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.

cmdkeen 12y ago
You'd be queuing up to praise a financial regulator that cared about the spirit not just letter of the law. Just in this instance the spirit of the law is going against a disruptive tech darling.
buro9 12y ago
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

sschueller 12y ago

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

davidw 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.
- ryguytilidie 12y ago
  Ex-FB employee here. Honestly most of my old coworkers now seem to be at Uber and doing the same ultra insane seige mentality shit where you convince yourself that you're company is doing the right thing no matter what and that anyone who thinks otherwise are "haters". While this may be a great media/PR strategy, its also a pretty good litmus test as to whether you're a respectable human being imo.
- davidw 12y ago
  > Negative press is meaningless when you dominate your industry Taxi companies dominate the taxi industry, it seems to me: they're shutting down Uber in more and more places.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    As I said, Uber doesn't dominate yet. Which is why they need to spend their time fight the taxis and not the media.
    - davidw 12y ago
      I read it. I think they're a long way from dominating much of anything in some ways, given how easy it is for regulators to shut them down. I'm not anti-Uber or at least anti-disruption for the taxi industry. Here in Italy the taxi lobby is strong and very, very much against any kind of change or liberalization, and can use pretty nasty tactics themselves when they feel threatened.

nodesocket 12y ago

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?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
prawn 12y ago
"The two officials claim that Uber makes misleading statements about the background checks it performs on drivers and falsely charged a $1 "Safe Rides Fee," among other accusations."
beedogs 12y ago
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.

TheBiv 12y ago

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.

ryguytilidie 12y ago

"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.

kristofferR 12y ago
But the laws aren't there to protect the public, they're there to protect the taxi companies.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  That's true, especially in US, with that insane and completely irrational "golden medallion" law. However, I have no sympathy left for Uber. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned.
- ryanobjc 12y ago
  That's so patently false it's ridiculous. The taxi regulations are lengthy and serve multiple purposes. To classify it with a single sentence is just silly. After all, requiring proper operating equipment and frequent inspections obviously doesn't benefit users... Is that what you're really forwarding? I hope not!
  - davidw 12y ago
    "It's complicated", I think, and not clear cut one way or the other. Certainly one-sentence quips favoring one or the other side don't do the issue justice or hint at a reasonable resolution to the problems.
    - ryanobjc 12y ago
      Yes, exactly, it's complicated. I was going to say I expect more out of HN commenters, but then I'd be lying. The people here are perhaps "smarter" than many, but their heads are made out of the same fallible gloopy cholesterol that the rest of us are. Cognitive biases are for everyone, and in some ways worse among those who refuse to admit the essential hormonal/emotional nature of our brains.

photograve 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.

LukeFitzpatrick 12y ago

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 12y ago
I'm more surprised that people still visit Quora, let alone browse it.
- adwn 12y ago
  > I'm more surprised that people still visit Quora [...] Would you care to explain? (I'm genuinely curious)
  - baddox 12y ago
    It was hyperbole. I obviously didn't believe that literally zero people browse Quora. I just mean that the site feels essentially dead to me. Ever since Google apparently killed their results, I haven't seen any links to a Quora post. I also don't hear any updates about the company, which used to be a regular occurrence around here a couple of years ago.
    - bmajz 12y ago
      I'm subscribed to their email digest. It manages to hook me just about every time with some delightful content. Go figure.
      - 12y ago

dollar 12y ago

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 12y ago
I won't mind if they leave town at all.
- dollar 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
  - davidw 12y ago
    If you flip that around, should paying taxes somehow insulate you from being sued?
  - morky 12y ago
    Yeah thats how laws work mate.

choppaface 12y ago

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

Fede_V 12y ago

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.

darkiniaha 12y ago
I'm genuinely curious about this witch hunt against Uber. Is this Social Justice Warriors vs Uber? Or just invested like Peter Thiel from Lyft doing a coordinated attack against Uber?
no_future 12y ago
>That essay by Paul Graham about 'mean people' is looking downright prophetic right about now. None of this crap changes the fact that Uber is a massively successful service and is beloved by consumers. Big companies get sued all the time. Apple(and just about every other company) manufacture the products people love in China where the workers are under horrible conditions, arguably ethically worse than anything Uber has ever done. So no, mean people don't fail any more than any other kind of person does. People just love to hate them.
flexie 12y ago
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.

001sky 12y ago

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.

beedogs 12y ago

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.

morky 12y ago

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

amelius 12y ago

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

chdir 12y ago

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-complained-about-rapist-driver-in-november-uber-ignored/347939?pfrom=home-lateststories http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/woman-c... (Credit goes to a comment down below for first mentioning this)

jfoster 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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-background-checks-on-4000-drivers-plying-on-delhi-roads-says-uber-2042510 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-we-did-not-run-backgrou...

emodendroket 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.)
- dyeje 12y ago
  Regardless of how innovative they are, they're breaking the law.
- ulfw 12y ago
  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.
baddox 12y ago
> I don't know why everyone is pretending they're providing such an innovative and new service. I'm not pretending, I'm reporting empirical observations. Uber provides a service that is really nice, and significantly changed the way I transport myself around town. It is empirically an innovative and new service.

habosa 12y ago

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.

efsavage 12y ago
The generally accepted way of changing or challenging a law you believe to be wrong and that provides more rent to it's beneficiaries than it costs to defend it, is to break it, repeatedly. (With apologies to those who fight against things far more onerous than taxi medallions)
murbard2 12y ago
"How can this be OK?" There is no moral duty to obey unjust laws.
- habosa 12y ago

cleanupyouract 12y ago

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