5 ms·

Breaking the law, not "evading regulations."

hailwren 7y ago
I'm fairly sure they meant evading regulations. One means to structure your business in such a way that current laws are not directly applicable. The other means to ignore them completely. Unless you were trying to make an argument that Uber did not evade regulations and in fact broke the law?
- munk-a 7y ago
  Evading a regulation is almost always a violation of the law (the exception being weird industry group things like voluntary audits that result in certifications). I think most people consider onerous regulations to construct a barrier against entry aimed at any new market entrants[1] to be a different sort of law breaking than normal law breaking (more... morally and ethically acceptable). IMO Uber has flagrantly ignored a number of regulations regarding driver background checks that have allowed it to become less than safe to ride in, especially for single women, there have been a plethora of stories about women being stalked by uber drivers - even within the water-cooler talk at my office. So technically they've broken a bunch of laws - and ethically they've acted in bad faith. 1. Please note, I think what regulations would be in this group varies extremely across HN, with the more freebretarian folks placing all regulations here, while others may consider labour regulations or environmental regulations to provide real value - and I really don't want to get into this discussion, I just think we can all mentally place a line _somewhere_
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    Breaking a regulation is not the same as breaking a law. We have two types of law in the US, civil and criminal law. Civil law is enforced through lawsuits by the aggrieved party using the legal concept of tort, criminal law is prosecuted by the state in a process we're all more familiar with due to media attention. Regulations are enforced by regulatory bodies that operate under a different legal basis than civil / criminal law. Regulatory bodies are not legislative in nature but rather executive. Being sanctioned by a regulatory body is a very different thing than getting prosecuted. For one, a regulatory body does not enjoy legitimate use of force, and cannot imprison individuals. They can only sanction according to their mandate. If you refuse to pay a sanction, this may escalate to a prosecutable criminal infraction. But simply breaking regs isn't a crime. For instance, if you're operating an illegal home-based business, you may be subject to sanction by the zoning authority and the entity that you were supposed to register with. Like the local real estate board if you were providing realtor services without a license. Only in rare situations is it a criminal offense to provide commercial services without the proper licenses, such as providing legal or medical services. It is not, as you say, the norm. Even in the case of environmental regulations, rarely are they elevated to the status of crimes under criminal law. More usually you'll get contacted by the appropriate environmental protection administration and fined. I recall hearing about one company who would simply call up the authorities whenever they needed to dump into the river and pay the token fine. There's a lot of room for improvement.
- mmaurizi 7y ago
  They had a thing going for a while in Philly where UberX (the normal-car service, as opposed to the limo-type service) was disallowed by the city, but Uber promised to pay any fines if drivers were caught and tried to prevent cops from using the app. I'd say that's firmly on the "breaking the law" side of things.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  It doesn't take a triple digit IQ to understand that Uber has operated a fundamentally illegal business model that does not respect the localities in which they operate. In the past (pre-Uber), if you made this amount of money by engaging in large-scale, coordinated law breaking, you were called a gangster and got a big old nice RICO charge. Don't be confused or blinded by the valuation. That is a byproduct of breaking the rules. The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. My view is 10x more harsh on companies breaking the law in a coordinated manner than compared to an individual person.
  - rileymat2 7y ago
    It is my understanding that many places distinguished between hailed services and on call services, but Uber was able to do on call at an unexpected scale? I am sure you can dig up illegal acts, but the secret sauce was the new dynamic that bent what people thought was possible at scale.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    > The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). Thank goodness it was only in theory. The taxi industry was and is terrible, the only thing propping it up is regulatory capture. > As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. As a consumer, I'm glad that the rules were systematically broken in a way that benefitted everyone except the taxi industry.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      > in a way that benefitted everyone I can definitely get aboard the taxi hate train, but do bear in mind that there has been a higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers - it's not a free win for everyone, they broke both rules intended for regulatory capture and those intended for public safety.
askafriend 7y ago
What law did they break? They didn’t break any law when they started. They were operating legally.
- pnongrata 7y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in Brazil you are not allowed to give rides and charge for it.
pjc50 7y ago
Well, why not both? It would be very Uber to propose a $21 minimum wage law for drivers and then .. just not pay them that.
- briffle 7y ago
  Probably hired the same legal team that helped wireless firms offer 'unlimited' data.. Or ISP's that offer "up to" speeds (with no mention of caps)

I'm fairly sure they meant evading regulations. One means to structure your business in such a way that current laws are not directly applicable. The other means to ignore them completely. Unless you were trying to make an argument that Uber did not evade regulations and in fact broke the law?

munk-a 7y ago
Evading a regulation is almost always a violation of the law (the exception being weird industry group things like voluntary audits that result in certifications). I think most people consider onerous regulations to construct a barrier against entry aimed at any new market entrants[1] to be a different sort of law breaking than normal law breaking (more... morally and ethically acceptable). IMO Uber has flagrantly ignored a number of regulations regarding driver background checks that have allowed it to become less than safe to ride in, especially for single women, there have been a plethora of stories about women being stalked by uber drivers - even within the water-cooler talk at my office. So technically they've broken a bunch of laws - and ethically they've acted in bad faith. 1. Please note, I think what regulations would be in this group varies extremely across HN, with the more freebretarian folks placing all regulations here, while others may consider labour regulations or environmental regulations to provide real value - and I really don't want to get into this discussion, I just think we can all mentally place a line _somewhere_
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  Breaking a regulation is not the same as breaking a law. We have two types of law in the US, civil and criminal law. Civil law is enforced through lawsuits by the aggrieved party using the legal concept of tort, criminal law is prosecuted by the state in a process we're all more familiar with due to media attention. Regulations are enforced by regulatory bodies that operate under a different legal basis than civil / criminal law. Regulatory bodies are not legislative in nature but rather executive. Being sanctioned by a regulatory body is a very different thing than getting prosecuted. For one, a regulatory body does not enjoy legitimate use of force, and cannot imprison individuals. They can only sanction according to their mandate. If you refuse to pay a sanction, this may escalate to a prosecutable criminal infraction. But simply breaking regs isn't a crime. For instance, if you're operating an illegal home-based business, you may be subject to sanction by the zoning authority and the entity that you were supposed to register with. Like the local real estate board if you were providing realtor services without a license. Only in rare situations is it a criminal offense to provide commercial services without the proper licenses, such as providing legal or medical services. It is not, as you say, the norm. Even in the case of environmental regulations, rarely are they elevated to the status of crimes under criminal law. More usually you'll get contacted by the appropriate environmental protection administration and fined. I recall hearing about one company who would simply call up the authorities whenever they needed to dump into the river and pay the token fine. There's a lot of room for improvement.
mmaurizi 7y ago
They had a thing going for a while in Philly where UberX (the normal-car service, as opposed to the limo-type service) was disallowed by the city, but Uber promised to pay any fines if drivers were caught and tried to prevent cops from using the app. I'd say that's firmly on the "breaking the law" side of things.
GhettoMaestro 7y ago
It doesn't take a triple digit IQ to understand that Uber has operated a fundamentally illegal business model that does not respect the localities in which they operate. In the past (pre-Uber), if you made this amount of money by engaging in large-scale, coordinated law breaking, you were called a gangster and got a big old nice RICO charge. Don't be confused or blinded by the valuation. That is a byproduct of breaking the rules. The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. My view is 10x more harsh on companies breaking the law in a coordinated manner than compared to an individual person.
- rileymat2 7y ago
  It is my understanding that many places distinguished between hailed services and on call services, but Uber was able to do on call at an unexpected scale? I am sure you can dig up illegal acts, but the secret sauce was the new dynamic that bent what people thought was possible at scale.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mullingitover 7y ago
  > The rules were not broken because they were unfair - that's a meme - you don't get to pass arbitrary judgement of which laws you do and do not respect (in theory). Thank goodness it was only in theory. The taxi industry was and is terrible, the only thing propping it up is regulatory capture. > As a business, if you do not like the legal environment (rules) of a certain location, the logical (and respectable) choice is to not operate in that region/location. As a consumer, I'm glad that the rules were systematically broken in a way that benefitted everyone except the taxi industry.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    > in a way that benefitted everyone I can definitely get aboard the taxi hate train, but do bear in mind that there has been a higher incident of sexual assaults tied to uber drivers over taxi drivers - it's not a free win for everyone, they broke both rules intended for regulatory capture and those intended for public safety.

askafriend 7y ago

What law did they break? They didn’t break any law when they started. They were operating legally.

pnongrata 7y ago
I don't know about the US, but in Brazil you are not allowed to give rides and charge for it.

pjc50 7y ago

Well, why not both? It would be very Uber to propose a $21 minimum wage law for drivers and then .. just not pay them that.

briffle 7y ago
Probably hired the same legal team that helped wireless firms offer 'unlimited' data.. Or ISP's that offer "up to" speeds (with no mention of caps)