In New Lawsuit, Quinn Emanuel Client Sidecar Calls Uber a 'Monopolist'
The successor to defunct ridesharing company Sidecar claims Uber lowered prices to eliminate competition from the market.
December 11, 2018 at 06:46 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The successor company to defunct ride-hailing app Sidecar sued Uber Technologies Inc. on Tuesday alleging Uber used unfair tactics to drive competition off the road and is “now a monopolist.”
The suit filed by SC Innovations Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California claims Uber stole Sidecar's business model and “intentionally sustained near-term losses that were designed to drive Sidecar out of the market while Uber acquired a dominant market position.”
In a statement, Uber denied the allegations and said Sidecar's suit “got it backwards” when it called the company's low prices anticompetitive.
“Ridesharing is a highly competitive industry, with many players coming and going over the years—like Sidecar, not all have survived,” an Uber spokesperson said in a statement.
Ethan Glass and Claude Stern of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan are representing SC Innovations.
“We fought hard in the marketplace, and were the first company to introduce a number of cutting-edge features that are now a part of every ride-hailing app,” Sidecar founder Sunil Paul said in a blog post Tuesday. “If Uber had won the ride-hailing market on a level playing field, we would have been disappointed, but that's something we could have lived with. That's not what happened.”
Sidecar launched its ridesharing app in 2012, three years after Uber's debut in 2009. But Sidecar allowed drivers to use their personal vehicles and pick up passengers traveling similar routes in one ride. Uber launched a similar service, Uber X, in 2013.
Sidecar alleges Uber subsidized driver pay and rider fare, operating at a loss, as executives “specifically planned for this subsidized pricing strategy to foreclose competition.”
“In plain English, it means Uber subsidized rides and driver payments to drive Sidecar and competitors out of the market, so they could raise prices later,” Paul said. “And it looks like their plan worked. We shut down in December 2015 and ever since Uber has been raising prices for passengers and lowering payments to drivers.”
It's not the first time Uber's been sued by the competition or litigated against Quinn Emanuel attorneys. In February, Uber settled a high-profile trade secrets case brought by Google's autonomous vehicle branch Waymo, which claimed Uber poached a star engineer for his access to Google's self-driving vehicle technology. Waymo was represented by a Quinn team in that litigation.
The latest suit comes at a busy time for Uber. Less than a week ago, the company filed to go public—around the time that competitor Lyft, Inc. did the same.
“We believe the timing of this complaint, filed three years after Sidecar went out of business, is not a coincidence,” Uber's spokesperson said.
Read the complaint: [falcon src="embed_1"]
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Litigators of the Week: Quinn Emanuel Slashes $137M Racial Discrimination Verdict Against Tesla by Nearly 98%
Litigators of the Week: Defense Verdict Secured By Quinn Emanuel in Multibillion Securities Trial Over Musk's Go-Private Tweets
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250