- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Mobile-based ride-sharing service Uber created quite a stir this weekend, setting a new valuation record for a technology startup in a direct investment round. Injecting $1.2 billion into the San Francisco-based service, investors valued Uber at $17 billion, a dramatic increase from last year’s valuation of $3.5 billion. An alternative to traditional taxi services, Uber functions through a highly-interactive mobile app that instantly connects customers and drivers, who provide transport in their personal vehicles. The ease of payment is especially attractive to customers, as fare is automatically charged directly through the app based on route distance. Uber in turn takes 20 percent of its drivers’ fares.
Uber and its primary competitors Lyft and Sidecar have enjoyed impressive growth recently, with Uber now serving 128 cities in 37 countries. The company also claims it is creating 20,000 jobs for new drivers every month. While the growth potential has investors salivating, Uber faces significant legal challenges.
Generally, traditional taxi services are subject to a myriad of municipal and state licensing, insurance, fare and pickup regulations, and in many large cities, taxi drivers are unionized. The legality of Uber’s operations is questionable in many cities, and resistance has mounted from both authorities and traditional taxi drivers alike. Last week, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles sent Uber and Lyft cease and desist letters for operating without proper permits, and San Francisco International Airport has declared that the companies’ operations on airport property is trespassing. Taxi drivers across Europe have opposed the services with lawsuits and strikes, including a physical attack on a Uber car in Paris earlier this year.
Also unsettled is the precise legal relationship between Uber and its drivers: are the drivers employees or independent contractors, and when does that relationship end? While Uber mandates that its drivers maintain $1 million in liability insurance coverage from trip acceptance to drop-off, it remains potentially vulnerable to incidents involving its drivers who do not have an active rider but have the app open. The family of a San Francisco girl who was struck and killed by a riderless Uber driver has filed a wrongful-death suit against the company, alleging it violates California distracted driving laws.
Concerns extend to criminal activity as well: last week Los Angeles police arrested an Uber driver for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a rider.
While Uber and its investors are betting that the app will ultimately replace traditional taxi services and dominate the transportation-for-hire industry, the company’s legal headaches may only increase as it continues its aggressive expansion to more cities and countries.
Recent Blog Posts
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
- What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution