6 ms·

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

eridius 13y ago
They're paying cancellation fees. If I order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut in order to find out who the drivers were, and paid for them, then there's no issue. Even though I don't intend on eating the pizzas, I still paid for the service. In this case, Uber is paying the cancellation fees for the privilege of booking, then cancelling, a Gett ride.
- goldenkey 13y ago
  With the intent to disrupt business. They can be easily sued for this practice. This isn't a consumer doing so, this is a company having their employees vehemently attack a competitor.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Exactly. Legit customers can't book cars because they're busy and when they do the drivers might bail because they think its yet another fake order. Screw Uber. Theyre not a tech start-up, they're an illegal car service masquerading as a tech company.
  - brianmcdonough 13y ago
    Thank you for making it clear why this practice is bad corporate practice for those who are not as moral in their perspective. Uber seems hell bent on becoming the only game in town and then raping their customers during peak periods.
- avalaunch 13y ago
  If you order pizzas and pay for them, you're completely the transaction as expected. If you order a car from a car service and then cancel it, you're not. The fact that a cancellation fee exists doesn't give you the right to use the system in such an unintended manner. A better analogy than the pizza analogy might be a "customer" repeatedly buying clothes with the intent to wear and then return them. Despite the fact that there is a return policy in place, the fact that the customer never intended on keeping any of the clothes makes his behavior fraudulent.
  - eridius 13y ago
    There is nothing illegal about repeatedly buying clothes, then returning. If I do that enough the store may bar me from the premises for being exceedingly annoying, but they certainly can't charge me with anything.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - aidenn0 13y ago
      Some localities do have laws forbidding buying something with the intent to return it.
    - avalaunch 13y ago
      I said it was fraudulent, which it definitely is. Whether or not it fits the legal definition of fraud is debatable.
    - yapcguy 13y ago
      Another example is a cafe. Get a bunch of people to repeatedly queue up but when they get to the counter decide they don't want to order anything. Just the sight of a long queue outside the door is going to put off legit customers Clearly Uber are engaging in activities to disrupt and cause harm to the business of their competitor.
Dylan16807 13y ago
It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough. It's dickish, but no actual harm is done. And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.
- hangonhn 13y ago
  "It's dickish, but no actual harm is done." In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    It's still not fraud to call someone and waste their time for a while. See also: telemarketers
    - kd0amg 13y ago
      Wasting their time via deception might be though.
    - hangonhn 13y ago
      Fraud is only one type of harm. The bigger question is whether there is harm, regardless of type. In the restaurant case, there is harm even though it's not fraud. In Gett's case it's not really fraud either but one can argue there was harm done as well. Information can confer competitive advantage. The question that remains is who's fault it is. It's kind of dumb on Gett's part to leave themselves wide open. I'm not experienced enough in jurisprudence to really determine that.
- avalaunch 13y ago
  What you describe is a hoax, contrasted to fraud in that there was no intent of gain on the perpetrator's part and that no harm was caused (debatable in your example). What Uber did, and in my example, there was both intent of gain and harm. You could argue that there was no harm to Gett because of the cancellation fees, but that's only true if the cancellation fees are greater than the cost they incurred which may or may not be true.

eridius 13y ago

They're paying cancellation fees. If I order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut in order to find out who the drivers were, and paid for them, then there's no issue. Even though I don't intend on eating the pizzas, I still paid for the service. In this case, Uber is paying the cancellation fees for the privilege of booking, then cancelling, a Gett ride.

goldenkey 13y ago
With the intent to disrupt business. They can be easily sued for this practice. This isn't a consumer doing so, this is a company having their employees vehemently attack a competitor.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Exactly. Legit customers can't book cars because they're busy and when they do the drivers might bail because they think its yet another fake order. Screw Uber. Theyre not a tech start-up, they're an illegal car service masquerading as a tech company.
- brianmcdonough 13y ago
  Thank you for making it clear why this practice is bad corporate practice for those who are not as moral in their perspective. Uber seems hell bent on becoming the only game in town and then raping their customers during peak periods.
avalaunch 13y ago
If you order pizzas and pay for them, you're completely the transaction as expected. If you order a car from a car service and then cancel it, you're not. The fact that a cancellation fee exists doesn't give you the right to use the system in such an unintended manner. A better analogy than the pizza analogy might be a "customer" repeatedly buying clothes with the intent to wear and then return them. Despite the fact that there is a return policy in place, the fact that the customer never intended on keeping any of the clothes makes his behavior fraudulent.
- eridius 13y ago
  There is nothing illegal about repeatedly buying clothes, then returning. If I do that enough the store may bar me from the premises for being exceedingly annoying, but they certainly can't charge me with anything.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - aidenn0 13y ago
    Some localities do have laws forbidding buying something with the intent to return it.
  - avalaunch 13y ago
    I said it was fraudulent, which it definitely is. Whether or not it fits the legal definition of fraud is debatable.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Another example is a cafe. Get a bunch of people to repeatedly queue up but when they get to the counter decide they don't want to order anything. Just the sight of a long queue outside the door is going to put off legit customers Clearly Uber are engaging in activities to disrupt and cause harm to the business of their competitor.

Dylan16807 13y ago

It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough. It's dickish, but no actual harm is done. And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.

hangonhn 13y ago
"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done." In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  It's still not fraud to call someone and waste their time for a while. See also: telemarketers
  - kd0amg 13y ago
    Wasting their time via deception might be though.
  - hangonhn 13y ago
    Fraud is only one type of harm. The bigger question is whether there is harm, regardless of type. In the restaurant case, there is harm even though it's not fraud. In Gett's case it's not really fraud either but one can argue there was harm done as well. Information can confer competitive advantage. The question that remains is who's fault it is. It's kind of dumb on Gett's part to leave themselves wide open. I'm not experienced enough in jurisprudence to really determine that.
avalaunch 13y ago
What you describe is a hoax, contrasted to fraud in that there was no intent of gain on the perpetrator's part and that no harm was caused (debatable in your example). What Uber did, and in my example, there was both intent of gain and harm. You could argue that there was no harm to Gett because of the cancellation fees, but that's only true if the cancellation fees are greater than the cost they incurred which may or may not be true.