As NYC Council Sets Vote on Regulating Ridehails, Lawyers Eye Options to Fight Back
If the City Council approves new regulations on Uber and other ride-hailing services, including a cap on the size of their fleets, the industry may have a few legal options at its disposal to fight back.
August 03, 2018 at 04:52 PM
4 minute read
The New York City Council is set to vote Wednesday on a package of bills to impose new regulations on Uber and other ride-hailing services, including a first-of-its-kind freeze on the number of cars the companies can have on the city's streets that has been met with stiff opposition from the industry. Uber, Lyft and other services have become an increasingly popular way to get around New York City as the performance of public transit has flagged in recent years and left commuters fed up. Ride-hailing services have been identified as a contributing factor in increased congestion on New York City's streets and also played a role in the falling value of taxi medallions, which had been valued at more than $1 million in 2013 and have since fallen to $250,000 or less. Also on the minds of lawmakers is a recent rash of cab driver suicides, apparently tied to the falling value of the medallion. City Council Speaker Corey Johnson supports the measures and has said publicly that he is confident that proposals, which includes a minimum wage for drivers, will get through the council. His office confirmed on Friday that the bills are moving toward a vote. In a last-ditch effort before the deadline to amend the bills, Uber, Lyft and a smaller competitor, Via, proposed to form a $100 million hardship fund to help with the nose-diving value of taxi medallions if the council agreed to scrap the cap, but city leaders turned down the offer. In its fight with the city over the proposed new regulations, the industry—deemed “for-hire vehicle” services or “transportation networks” in the parlance of government—has argued that regulations would not only negatively affect service across the city, particularly outside of Manhattan, but disproportionately affect communities of color, where many have had to endure being passed up by taxis. “We're filling in the gaps, but capping Uber is a mistake because it's going to leave New Yorkers stranded,” said Uber spokeswoman Danielle Filson. With respect to other proposals before the council, Filson said that Uber does not oppose minimum pay for drivers. In a statement, Lyft argues that the industry's “churn rate” is 25 percent and thus a freeze would cause across-the-board reductions in service. “This would take New York back to an era of standing on the corner and hoping to get a ride. Wait times would increase significantly and driver earnings and job opportunities would shrink,” the statement reads. “Worst of all, the proposals prioritize corporate medallion owners above the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers.” The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a nonprofit that supports decreased reliance on motorized transportation, conducted a study finding that app-based services are doing the “yeoman's work” in terms of serving the outer boroughs. People in lower-income neighborhoods have a higher likelihood of catching a ride with an app-based service or a green “borough cab” than they have with a yellow cab, according to the study. As for the issue of service refusal by cabbies as well as for-hire vehicles and ride-hailing services, the city announced this past week that it would form a new “Office of Inclusion” within the TLC to prosecute refusal claims. According to data from the TLC, complaints against for-hire vehicles are on the rise, while complaints against cabs have fallen. In 2017, there were 343 complaints about service refusal by for-hire vehicles, up from 175; in the same time frame, complaints against cabs fell from 4,684 to 1,834.
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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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