SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:31PM (2 children)
How about this instead, tell me why there should be any relation at all between the two without using the preschool "it's not fair because I don't like it" argument.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:16PM (1 child)
Think of it this way. Let's say I sign a contract with you to provide a service for a price. Then you turn around and contract with someone else to actually provide the service to me. This is perfectly legal, and there's no reason in this case that the price I pay you to need to have a relationship to what you pay the provider - you're effectively making money on your ability to make a market. But as far as I'm concerned, my contract is with you - I pay you, not the provider. I'm not involved in paying the provider. And if your service provider fails to turn up, you're still obligated to make good on your contract with me - I'm your customer, not the provider's customer. If your provider lets you down, that's your worry - you're the provider's customer, not me. And regardless, it would be hard for you to argue you don't provide services, since I have a signed contract with you that states you agreed to provide those services.
Now consider a different structure. Let's say that, instead of you signing a contract directly with me, instead you bring me and the service provider together, and I sign the contact directly with the service provider (after paying you a finders fee for your trouble in bringing us together). Now you're completely off the hook on what happens - if the service provider fails to deliver, my issue is with them. Because you're not a party to the agreement between me and the service provider. You're not a service provider - you never said YOU would provide services - you just introduced me to someone who does.
Uber has argued many, many times to regulators, lawmakers, and courts that Uber is the second type of middleman - they don't PROVIDE transportation, they just bring people who need transportation and people who provide transportation together. That means they're not a transportation company, so they shouldn't be subject to any regulations, taxes, or restrictions that apply to transportation companies. They just facilitate private parties to connect. In that worly - ld, the amount I pay and the amount the driver receive ARE related, because (in theory) I'm paying the driver directly - all Uber does is collect the funds to hold in trust, for eventual payment to the driver (less Uber's fees).
However, Uber's argument here is based on an argument that they're the first type of middleman - that THEY own the money the passengers pay, not the driver. And that THEY can, according to their contract, determine how much to pay the driver independently. That's fine - it's perfectly legal to run a business that way. But if they're the first kind of middleman, then they need to accept the consequence that it means THEY are a transportation company - THEY are the company that's providing service to passengers.
The problem isn't whether Uber claiming they can keep as much as they want of what the passenger pays is "fair" to the driver. It's that they can't claim to own those funds while ALSO arguing to be "just the matchmaker" to private parties.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:31PM
Okay, that's a solid logical argument. In this specific case I agree it does matter.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.