A continuation of part I, we have zeroed in on a few regulatory battles Uber has been involved in within the past few months. The company is continuously making headlines for their “never take no for an answer” attitude and the different legal obstacles encountered with each new city. Check out the clashes Uber has faced in these three major US cites.
Boston
Recent protests have brought rideshare regulation issues to life once again in the city of Boston. Taxi drivers parked their vehicles outside of Cambridge City Hall last week, chanting and honking in protest of rideshare services. The claim, like cab drivers around the world, is that business has decreased by over fifty percent since Uber has entered the city and drivers are unable to compete due to laws imposed on the taxi industry. City officials at the scene were outwardly supportive of rideshares; a few were even overheard telling protestors that these services will never be outlawed and that they themselves were huge users and fans of the services.
Instead of banning rideshare services, many city officials are turning their focus to deregulating the taxi industry “level the playing field” and facilitate competition. Initiatives such as lowering certain fees associated with driving a cab and assisting cab companies in the creation of a mobile-app that would work in a similar fashion to rideshare service apps. Governor Baker of Massachusetts has already supported and submitted a bill that is considered “Uber-friendly,” but a counter-bill supported by the taxi industry is also in the works. This debate is expected to continue in September, where regulation or deregulation can be decided on at a state level.
Chicago
Early 2015, Chicago issued a “transportation network provider” license to Uber, but only after meticulous negotiations to increase security measures to protect riders. After a few incidents involving sexual attacks by Uber drivers, the company and city met to significantly increase safety for riders and barriers to entry for drivers.
The agreement met, included full cooperation with police when problems arise, fully disclosing related ride information such as GPS tracking of the ride and driver information. The company will conduct more in-depth background checks that fully inspect the potential driver’s criminal record in the past. Each month, Uber is required to hire “mystery-shopper”-like riders to audit drivers and check that all criteria is being met. In addition, Chicago required Uber to increase in-app rider safety features including a safety checklist, easier access to driver information, and ability to share ride information with outside individuals. These mark a few of the main points of the agreement, but even more security measures were required for the full-licensing by the city of Chicago.
Behind the scenes, there have been accusations that Mayor Emanuel of Chicago unfairly favored Uber entering the city because family investment ties to the company. The mayor came back with a statement denying the favoritism and ensuring riders that proper safety measures had been taken and met the criteria for full licensing in the city. Cab drivers and taxi drivers in unions are still protesting the growing presence of rideshare services in the city, claiming the loss of over two million rides a month and forcing many drivers into bankruptcy.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. regulatory action is a rare example of a legal decision passed by a city that Uber approves and applauds. The Vehicle-for-Hire Innovation Amendment Act of 2014 was passed almost unanimously about a year ago in D.C.; Uber touts this bill as a model for other cities to follow and implement. Like other cities, the passing of the act was accompanies by taxi driver protests outside City Hall and the attempt to alter the bill until the very end. The finalized Act included a few key laws that were especially appealing to rideshare services like Uber, including:
- Requires rideshare drivers to be included under liability insurance of the company whenever driving for the app.
- Requires driver background checks.
- Requires rideshare vehicles to have some kind of identifiable mark to distinguish from public.
- Does not require the disclosure of inventory or driver information to the city.
It is easy to see why Uber and other rideshare services were extremely pleased with the outcome of this regulatory action. However, almost a year after the bill, the Taxi Operators Association is coming back with a class-action lawsuit against the city. Within this lawsuit, cab drivers are claiming that this act created a double standard that favored rideshare services and severely hurt the taxicab industry. The argument concerning this so-called “special treatment” is still under discussion.
Sources used in this article:
