4 ms·

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

andyferris 3y ago
When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
- lysp 3y ago
  Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
  - farhanhubble 3y ago
    Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
    - BadHumans 3y ago
      I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.
      - zo1 3y ago
        Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act. Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
        littlecosmic 3y ago
        In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…
    - protocolture 3y ago
      Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.
    - Izkata 3y ago
      The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers. It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.
        Ekaros 3y ago
        It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm. Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
        aeyes 3y ago
        > cap prices > Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service. Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
  - musiciangames 3y ago
    I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.
- _kb 3y ago
  Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1]. [0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-drivers-are-prepared-to-pay-12-million-to-take-down-uber https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv... [1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-horse-and-carriage-to-deliver-hardcopy-emails-of-support/news-story/f3f8575d8528bae6912a2285782c13b7 https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...
jabroni_salad 3y ago
Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.
- plantain 3y ago
  "Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda... They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-be-blacklisted-in-nsw/88f8be65-619d-4300-8aed-36fd7cb332d0 https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
- protocolture 3y ago
  >this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lozenge 3y ago
Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/uber-class-action/ https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.
- farhanhubble 3y ago
  But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.
  - Retric 3y ago
    They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.
      - kijalo 3y ago
        Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        > Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
      - TillE 3y ago
        "Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already. If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.

When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.

lysp 3y ago
Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
- farhanhubble 3y ago
  Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
  - BadHumans 3y ago
    I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.
    - zo1 3y ago
      Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act. Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
      - littlecosmic 3y ago
        In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…
  - protocolture 3y ago
    Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.
  - Izkata 3y ago
    The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers. It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm. Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
        aeyes 3y ago
        > cap prices > Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service. Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
- musiciangames 3y ago
  I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.
_kb 3y ago
Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1]. [0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-drivers-are-prepared-to-pay-12-million-to-take-down-uber https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv... [1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-horse-and-carriage-to-deliver-hardcopy-emails-of-support/news-story/f3f8575d8528bae6912a2285782c13b7 https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...

jabroni_salad 3y ago

Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.

plantain 3y ago
"Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda... They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-be-blacklisted-in-nsw/88f8be65-619d-4300-8aed-36fd7cb332d0 https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
protocolture 3y ago
>this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lozenge 3y ago

Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/uber-class-action/ https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.

farhanhubble 3y ago
But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.
- Retric 3y ago
  They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.
    - kijalo 3y ago
      Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.
    - joshuaissac 3y ago
      > Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
    - TillE 3y ago
      "Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already. If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.