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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:46PM (8 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:46PM (#570739) Journal

    Regulation [dictionary.com]

    noun
    1.
    a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:54PM (#570744) Journal

    The legal term is Larceny, generally regulated a the State level:

    Here's a bunch of regulations that apparently don't exist. [findlaw.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:19PM (#570807)

      Law, your "legal terms", follow the commons. Theft existed before governments. "The commons" is just a term for how people conducted themselves before governments butted in, usually in the form of conquering warlords.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:57PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @05:57PM (#570745)

    Conclusion: we can have free markets only with true Scottish regulations.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (#570801) Journal

      Yeah, apparently their definition of "regulation" is "any regulation I don't like."

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Scrutinizer on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (3 children)

    by Scrutinizer (6534) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (#570802)

    Regulation: a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.

    There's your error. Even current-day US courts acknowledge that certain rights, laws, etc. exist outside of, apart from, and even predate governments. Don't take my word for it

    If the "mere" right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged as pre-existing government by today's USSC (a jaw-dropping miracle at that), how much more is the right to life - and thus the right to own property including one's own body?

    Side note: what authority existed before governments? That of a single individual, no greater and no lesser than the next individual's.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM (2 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:21PM (#570851) Journal

      If you don't know what the word "or" means you should probably avoid semantic arguments.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20 2017, @09:56PM (#570866)

        Try diagramming that sentence to realize that the word "or" being in your definition supports my post and has no bearing on your latest criticism of it.

        Otherwise you are claiming that laws and rule do not come from governments aka "authority", which I doubt, as that's my post's primary point.

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:08AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday September 21 2017, @05:08AM (#570992) Journal

        The only "or" in that quote is the one in the list "a law, rule, or other order". That list as a whole is then attributed as "prescribed by authority".

        And even if you parse it differently so that "prescribed by authority" only refers to "order", then "other order prescribed by authority" implies that the first two options are also specific types of orders prescribed by authority.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.