Once again, Uber is in the news. This time it's pissed off not only majors of cities, taxi drivers, countries, employees, but now it's the federal government. As quoted by the article;
An inquiry by the United States Department of Justice into Uber’s use of a program to deceive some regulators has expanded.
The ride-hailing company has been under scrutiny from the Justice Department over a tool called Greyball, which The New York Times reported on in March. The Greyball tool allowed Uber to deploy what was essentially a fake version of its app to evade law enforcement agencies that were trying to clamp down on its service in cities including Portland, Ore., Boston and Las Vegas.
Furthermore;
Portland was also moving ahead with subpoenaing Uber on Greyball, an official there said on Friday, affirming that the federal action was a criminal investigation.
The inquiry has also just announced that Philadelphia has joined in on the action against Uber.
Questions:
1. Has Uber finally pissed off enough people, that it might actually have dug it's own grave?
2. Could this give Uber's rivals such as Lyft the upper hand in public/investor appeal?
Uber is literally the pimp of low-income taxi drivers all around the world.
The world was fine without it.
No wonder Uber is banned in lots of countries, including all of Germany's biggest cities. (try getting one in Berlin. Good luck.)
i've seldom used it in the US, but was huge to have in buenos aires and so far in Mexico.
problems alleviated: drivers taking the wrong route or getting lost as most didn't use gps, ( whether on purpose or not), safety, timeliness, ease of ordering a ride, etc etc. in puerto vallarta i had to negotiate the price and hate having to do that, waste of time
95% of my cab rides were fine but i never choose a cab over uber unless i have to.
long live uber
Uber rocks for travel in developing countries. But I would prefer a London cab over an Uber in London. I would prefer the Uber Chopper in Dubai over all else.
Eh, the yuppies in Williamsburg Brooklyn still think they are the taxi equivalent to "doctor's without borders", I have to tip my hat to their marketing team for pushing the "sharing economy" narrative.
What possible jurisdiction could the federal government have to investigate Uber evading local laws?
Uber is a heroic company, doing battle against entrenched crony capitalists (corporatists) and bureaucrats the world over. Through force of will Uber has bulldozed through entrenched interests that no one thought they could defeat. Lyft, on the other hand, has a more sustainable business model--it's called letting Uber do the dirty work and take all the publicity hit while Lyft receives the benefits of Uber's heroics.
Uber is heroic in burning investors cash and most likely won't survive. It's driverless technology is thousand years behind Google.
I have no idea if it will survive or not--it will only survive with autonomous fleets. With that said, Uber has 40 million users (at least) and has reached platform "critical mass," and autonomous car technology will become commoditized once perfected, so to speak, so it doesn't really matter who "wins the race" to the best technology as it will be licensed technology.
IANAL, but patterns of illegal behavior that cross state lines are covered by RICO.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96
If the case is proven in criminal court, there may be jail time for principals, CEOs, and employees who knew about and permitted the obstruction of justice. It appears that if the criminal case against the firm is proven, it also means that investors stand to lose ALL of their investment.
Regardless, if the prosecutor gets probable cause for civil remedies, federal courts may be able to shut Uber down. That's fine; we all have Lyft and Curb, too.
In my view, the federal government cannot permit the attitude that it is acceptable to aggressively engage in a pattern of lawless behavior to make a buck. The last time we encountered this behavior, it was the Drexel Burnham Lambert; before that it was the mafia. If obstruction of justice is OK, what about corporations that engage in theft or using assault as a debt collection practice?
Illini, I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. For one, last time I checked, a crime committed in "Portland, Oregon" against Portland's laws does not constitute "interstate crime." I can't even begin to describe how ridiculous your interpretation of the law is.
Secondly, it's not a crime to avoid sting operations. Third, the federal government has no jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for an action that is illegal in one city and completely legal in another. Your interpretation of the law is utterly asinine.
Your view is wrong, patently wrong, and wrong on its face. The mafia committed murder and drug trafficking, both federal crime. What Uber did was perfectly legal in the VAST MAJORITY of U.S. territory. The federal government has NO authority to prosecute violations of local law.
Sit necessitatibus accusantium quis fugiat. Porro qui itaque nihil.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...