Legal Aspects Position Paper and Anti-Uber Presentation

Uber is a taxi technology firm that was established in 2009. Via a taxi ride program, the corporation effectively links the transportation market. It operates taxi services in over 200 big cities around the world.

Uber has a culture of coercing city officials into following the rules. On April 1st, 2015, the company discontinued its cab services in San Antonio, just a year after it began operations in the area. Negotiations with San Antonio city leaders yielded no positive results. Uber requested that city officials establish an operational environment that would enable it to offer high-quality service to its customers in the city. After failed negotiations, Uber announced its departure from the city on March 31, 2015. Six months after ceasing its business interests in San Antonio, Uber resumed operations in the town after a lot of lobbying and voting done by council members. The company had apparently reached an agreement with the local authority on new operating procedures (Schneider 35).

In 2016, Uber started running an experimental run program that utilizes cell phone innovation to get a more precise photo of drivers’ street conduct. Gyrometers in telephones can gauge little developments, while GPS and accelerometers demonstrate how frequently a vehicle begins and stops, and its general speed (Morrisey et al, 411). This can help figure out what really happened if a driver’s and traveler’s records vary. That, as well as Uber could utilize this innovation to proactively distinguish security issues. For example, the organization could decide that the normal South Florida Uber driver goes fifty miles per hour and takes fifty minutes to drive from Fort Lauderdale to Miami. For drivers who go substantially quicker on that extend, the company can request that they control their excitement.

City officials wanted Uber drivers to subject themselves to random drug screening and submit their fingerprints. Uber perceived the new demands as so strict and thought they would scare drivers from subscribing on Uber platform. City officials had an intention of enhancing the safety and security of Uber consumers (Moran 51). Drug driving is a major and well-documented cause of major road accidents in the United States, and subjecting drivers to random drug tests helps reduce car accidents by a significant margin. Uber’s continued operations in San Antonio put most of the cab customers in arms way regarding safety and security. The company’s refusal to be subjected to certain city regulations demonstrates how it disregards the safety of its clients.

The new agreement reached between Uber and the city council exempts the company from the background fingerprint check and drug screening even though other cab operators in the city are subject to such regulations. The move creates a hostile business environment by giving Uber a competitive edge over its rivals. I believe that we should have a level playing field for all cab operators in the city.

Uber as a transport firm in the United States (US) owns a large market share. Bloomberg Eric Newcomer rated it to be controlling between 84 to 87 percent of the US market share. The company to have a huge bargaining power in negotiating and entering agreements for transport service provision is an abuse of dominant position under section 2 of the Sherman Act 1890  and amounts to a criminal offence. Courts have interpreted this to show that monopoly is unlawful if acquired through a prohibited act (Letwin, 79).

While the above percentages are mere averages, it is clear that Lyft, is much closer to Uber in terms of competition for the market share in certain cities in United States, it is clear that Uber has power to decide which states to operate in. For example, In Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) it was held that the antitrust laws entitled the federal government to regulate monopolies that had a direct impact on commerce. The actions of Uber in not operating in certain states like, Wyoming, South Dakota, West Alaska and Virginia and Alaska no doubt has an adverse effect on commerce.

Uber utilized the thriving application market to dispatch an on-request vehicle service that soon developed into a multi-billion-dollar distinct advantage (Morrisey et al 414). Lyft was not a long ways behind, propelling its own particular kind of ridesharing in its home market of San Francisco soon a short time later. While there are other ride-hailing applications, for example, Hail-o and Sidecar, Lyft and Uber summon the best piece of the market. Ridesharing has turned out to be popular to the point that few noteworthy automakers are either banding together with Lyft and Uber, or setting up their own particular contending services. This upfront investment by significant producers highlights the present move in purchaser transportation. Rather than a corporate auto, many organizations in urban ranges now offer credits with different ridesharing services. Individuals have started, shopping, commuting and hitting the gym center in a Lyft or Uber. Individual vehicles are held for end of the week undertakings.

News reports of Lyft and Uber drivers striking and pestering travelers, or smashing their cars, are, tragically, far reaching. One Uber traveler even revealed being hit with a mallet by the driver after a question about the road. Uber and Lyft both run historical verifications on drivers and oblige them to convey obligation protection. Nonetheless, they additionally make travelers consent to strict terms and conditions that place the hazard decisively on the travelers and look to pardon the organizations of duty regarding drivers’ conduct.

Uber cab versus taxi drivers are not resistant from acting seriously, obviously. Be that as it may, if a cab driver hurts a traveler, regardless of whether purposefully or unintentionally, it’s typically less demanding for the traveler to look for reward from the taxi organization.

There’s one more real distinction with Lyft and Uber, and that is each organization’s identity. While Uber had it_x0092_s begin as an extravagance private-escort benefit, Lyft needed to be more tricky feely (Morrisey et al 416). Lyft additionally permits tipping, and takes twenty percent of tolls. Uber does not allow tips, and it takes in the vicinity of twenty and twenty five percent on standard service. Additionally it is significant that the rate of Uber drivers happy with their driving experience for Uber has remained moderately unaltered. Uber drivers might be more displeased, however that might be on account that there are just a greater amount of them to consider. Seventy-five percent of respondents said they drove for Uber, contrasted with 20.4 percent for Lyft. No less than 67 percent of drivers said they drove for two services or more.

In some cities like New York, Uber is beating Lyft by a much wider margin in terms of trips taken by the transport company. Between April 2015 and April 2016, Uber completed 168,528 per day compared to Lyft’s 26,783 trips, according to Morgan Stanley. This is due to is price discrimination as in some areas, Lyft has a better performance. Such acts are frowned upon by Robinson_x0096_Patman Act and regulations by the Federal Trade Commission.

In a bid to ensure that they care competitive in the United States market, Uber has of late been involved in offering of subsidies in an attempt to win the trust of riders and drivers alike. As a result, Lyft has been occasioned a market loss in their efforts to compete with Uber. These practices a will automatically be held by courts to be anticompetitive as they are obviously detrimental (Berlie, 639). The locus classicus in this position is United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. 273 U.S 392 (1927) where the per illegality of the price fixing and agreement for prices was upheld as an abuse of dominant position.

In conclusion, the action of Uber as a transport firm amounts to anti competitive practices that go against the antitrust laws in United States. Generally, the antitrust laws are based on legislations, case laws and regulations that though they do not criminalize monopoly, frowns upon and criminalizes the use of the acquisition of monopoly through prohibited acts.

Works Cited

Moran, Maarit. “Transportation Network Companies.” (2016).

Schneider, Henrique. “The Market Process and Uber.” Uber. Springer International Publishing, 2017. 29-54.

Berlie, A. “The Developing Law of Corporate Concentration.” University of Chicago Law

Review 19.4 (1952): 639.

Letwin, W. Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of Sherman Antitrust Act.

1965.

Morrisey, Michael A, and David C. Grabowski. “State Motor Vehicle Laws and Older Drivers.”

Health Economics. 14.4 (2015): 407-419. Print.