Do Startup Tech Companies Have Too Much Power?

With the recent Airbnb lawsuit with the city of New York, AirBnb is really throwing their weight around. Airbnb is looking to deregulate the house-sharing industry in the city, as NYC has recently implemented a new law that would require homeowners to be verified with the city prior to listing on the app.

This Isn't The First Time

Airbnb sued the city of San Francisco over the EXACT SAME LAW claiming that the new regulation put in by the city, requiring Airbnb to verify that their hosts have been registered with the city, was unconstitutional.

Nothing came of the lawsuit, with Airbnb settling but ultimately accepting SF's legislation. Interestingly however, Airbnb rentals in SF fell off a cliff during the duration of their lawsuit. I'm not sure if those are related.

Nor Are They The Only One

Uber successfully squashed a class action lawsuit in Ontario, Canada, where the plaintiffs, Uber drivers, were looking for employee status so they could be covered under the Ontario Employment Standards Act.

Uber has been having a lot of issues with its acceptance in large cities, namely Toronto, where complaints of increased traffic congestion are growing. Taxi drivers are protesting, public transport groups are lobbying government, and Uber is generally just finding it difficult to combat the old-fashioned industry. Granted they are doing amazing in terms of user growth, their perception amongst the rest of the industry is overwhelmingly negative. A trend that we are seeing in several of these revolutionary startup ideas.

A Unique Business Model That Governments Aren't Ready For

A private taxi company which doesn't own a single vehicle? Done.

A global accommodation platform that doesn't own a single sq. ft of real estate? Done.

A food delivery platform that doesn't cook a single meal? Done.

Clearly the times they are a-changing, with companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Grubhub, taking their respective industries and turning them on their heads. As companies of this sort start increasing in size, we are witnessing their growing pains, and their competitors trying to force them out. The legislation, competition, and infrastructure, all need to adapt quick with these technological advancements. I've never been a fan of governments regulating where they don't need to, and I believe both the Airbnb and Uber situations are examples of that. If these companies were left to their own devices, and new innovation was encouraged amongst others, we would be seeing a revolution in the dinosaurs that are their respective industries.

Should someone be strapping ankle chains on these innovative companies?

 

I haven't really thought of something like Uber or AirBnB, and not to hijack this thread, but this is certainly the case with a social media platform like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Naturally limiting hate speech is good, but it's dangerous for for these large firms to ultimately become the arbiters of what becomes free speech.

Quant (ˈkwänt) n: An expert, someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
 

It's because we aren't talking about the absolute size of these entities for some reason. Everyone is just all "Woo, Apple and Amazon touched a trillion!" Apple, last I checked, has more CASH on hand than most of the GDPs of the countries in the world. Apple has more CASH on hand than the GDPs of Egypt, Portugal, New Zealand, etc. They are in your home and they collect data on everything you possibly do in order to sell it back to you or to someone else. They are at mind-boggling size..

 
Most Helpful
BubbaBanker:
I haven't really thought of something like Uber or AirBnB, and not to hijack this thread, but this is certainly the case with a social media platform like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Naturally limiting hate speech is good, but it's dangerous for for these large firms to ultimately become the arbiters of what becomes free speech.

Private companies (in the sense that they are not govt. owned) can do whatever they want. The first amendment is about the government stifling free speech. If Facebook wants to ban every single user/ news website that leans conservative (or vice versa) then they can do so, it's their product and they are allowed to manage it as they see fit. Maybe you should worry about the morons out there that believe whatever they read on FB. I am about sick of the outcry for government intervention, it's the opposite of what makes this country great.

Edit: Now if the government wants to restrict their collection of user data as a violation of privacy laws that is a different story. But they don't really want that, they want access to that data so they can provide it to the NSA for their illegal surveillance which was authorized by the unconstitutional patriot act.

Array
 
BobTheBaker:
Maybe you should worry about the morons out there that believe whatever they read on FB. I am about sick of the outcry for government intervention, it's the opposite of what makes this country great.

I do, I'm just saying that there's usually less accountability with a company's practices than holding a congressman/govt department to account, but neither is particularly easy to do. I guess I'm more worried about people increasingly using it as their sole information source and not reading a newspaper or more than one news source.

Quant (ˈkwänt) n: An expert, someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
 

Because of the average age of a meaningful government official (Senate/House/Judiciary/Executive/Etc, I don't see how it could be anytime soon. They likely don't understand it/care to learn about it as they didn't grow up with it. Also, the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. Their older constituents aren't going to make a stink about it so why target profit centers that make the economy look good on an issue that won't get them reelected?

 

Cumque est sequi ut id voluptatem facere perspiciatis. Architecto debitis et reprehenderit voluptates. Quo consequuntur hic magni id rerum. Debitis neque quos accusamus repudiandae facere velit. Aperiam laborum qui et laborum assumenda. Molestiae porro reprehenderit neque explicabo quos sed.

Qui ut alias quia tempore. Culpa iusto commodi fugiat. Ipsa vero maiores delectus ipsa excepturi et animi.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”