Uber Seeks Antitrust Scrutiny of Taxicab Commission
In their Antitrust Trade and Practice column, Shepard Goldfein and James Keyte write: Uber, well-known as a disruptive force in the vehicle-for-hire industry, has decided to cause some disruption in the world of antitrust, suing the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission and commissioners and a number of taxi companies, alleging those groups' regulatory conduct constitutes an illegal combination in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
November 09, 2015 at 03:58 PM
12 minute read
Uber, well-known as a disruptive force in the vehicle-for-hire industry, has decided to cause some disruption in the world of antitrust. In September, Uber filed an antitrust lawsuit against the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC), the organization's commissioners and a number of St. Louis taxi companies. The suit, Wallen v. St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, alleges those groups' regulatory conduct constitutes an illegal combination in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.1 Central to Uber's claim is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission.2 Uber, relying on N.C. Dental, alleges the MTC's conduct is not immune from antitrust scrutiny because active market participants control the MTC and no government agency or official actively supervises its conduct.
The MTC recently moved to dismiss the lawsuit claiming that active market participants do not control the commission, and therefore state-action immunity applies to the antitrust claims even without active supervision from a government body.3
In March, we wrote about the Supreme Court's N.C. Dental decision, predicting possible ripple effects on the professional regulatory regimes of several industries, including vehicle-for-hire services.4
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.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
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