Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday September 20 2017, @03:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the always-read-the-fine-print dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1937

Uber is fighting a proposed class-action lawsuit that says it secretly over charges riders and under pays drivers. In its defense, the ride-hailing service claims that nobody is being defrauded in its "upfront" rider fare pricing model.

The fares charged to riders don't have to match up with the fares paid to drivers, Uber said, because that's what a driver's "agreement" allows.

"Plaintiff's allegations are premised on the notion that, once Uber implemented Upfront Pricing for riders, it was required under the terms of the Agreement to change how the Fare was calculated for Drivers," Uber said (PDF) in a recent court filing seeking to have the class-action tossed. "This conclusion rests on a misinterpretation of the Agreement."

The suit claims that, when a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride, the fare the app immediately shows the passenger is based on a slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the driver. The rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to the lawsuit.

Uber claims the disparity between rider and driver fares "was hardly a secret."

"Drivers," Uber told a federal judge, "could have simply asked a User how much he or she paid for the trip to learn of any discrepancy."

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/uber-driver-pay-plan-puts-a-significant-risk-on-ride-hailing-service/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:19PM (#570720)

    Such an epic strawman. Consumers have no choice anymore, the overwhelming majority of products are owned by massive umbrella corps. Collusion has been going on for a long time and the consumers have next to no power while the corps can buy there way through any obstacle. This is the free market end-game where government is beholden to corporations. If it isn't through straight bribery *ahem* LOBBYING I mean, then it is done through shady back stabbing buy outs of the competition. It is insanely difficult to create competitors to these corporate behemoths. Oh, don't mention government regulatory capture being the problem because that is part of the corruption that inevitably happens.

    The free market has failed, the only way to save it is with massive anti-corporate legislation of some form. Better yet mandate that all businesses be employee owned with min/max limits to prevent someone from owning 99% and giving employees 1%.

    Why am I even bothering, TMB pursues his ideology no matter the cost *shrug*.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:29PM (#570726)

    The free market, strangled by monopoly powers backed by the guns of government, fighting subsidies from stolen tax monies, its customers lured away by unpunished fraud, has failed,

    Fixed that for ya.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:48PM (#570773)

    you have so many original ideas. karl, is that you?

  • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM

    by Virindi (3484) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM (#570852)

    This is the free market end-game

    Yeah, because only governments that espouse free competition in the marketplace are vulnerable to corrupt cronyism.

    No. ALL governments are vulnerable to corrupt cronyism. It has nothing to do with "free market" ideals. Rather, it is a danger inherent to the concept of government itself: people weasel their way into using the power of the law to benefit their cause, and to pick the winners.

    Examples are too numerous to list. Perhaps it should suffice to point out that the Soviet Union had the exact same issues? Or that China does as well? Pick anyplace human activity is going on and you will find it.

    In the US, winners are definitely being picked. The common complaint about how laws seem to only apply to individuals and smallco, but not to the huge guys, is one great example. Another is the patent system, which does the same thing: protect the huge from the small. Or any of the millions of regulations designed to make building a new business cost more than it is worth so that the huge have less competition. These are all the power of the state being used in a corrupt manner, in very similar ways to has happened throughout history in every government system.

    The problem when you start blaming the "free market" is that you are denying the real issue: the state using its power to pick winners. The fact that those winners "lobbied" for it is not what is relevant, since in every system the same thing happens.

    The part that is important is that the people are active and keep their government in check. Many government systems have been designed to facilitate this*. But for this to work, the population has to have an understanding of what is going on. Being upset alone is not sufficient. The population needs to understand that the more numerous the rules, the more opportunity there is to play favorites. The population needs to understand that it is critical to have rules that are applied based on the rule, rather than coming up with some excuse to favor the side you already want to win**. Right now we have a population where both sides just want to win, and that is a recipe for corruption.

    Populations, in any government system, must also be vigilant against attempts to manipulate them.

    *The ability to resolve these things peacefully is one of the greatest advances of modern society. When they are resolved by force, the result is almost always bad.
    **A system where both sides are willing to throw out the process when it doesn't favor them quickly degenerates into back-room rule.