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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by MrGuy on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:45PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:45PM (#570771)

    Let's take it a step farther.

    Uber is arguing in court that they (not the customer) are the ones responsible for paying the drivers. They are also arguing that a legal agreement exists between Uber and the drivers, to which the passenger is NOT a party, which determines the amount that Uber will pay the drivers.

    You can still argue that Uber is contracting with independent drivers to deliver transportation services (which would still mean they have at least an argument that drivers are not employees).

    But it doesn't seem like you can argue that and ALSO argue that it's the driver (and NOT Uber) who is the one providing the transportation to the customer. The customer pays their consideration to Uber, not to the driver. Uber is asserting that it is Uber (and NOT the driver) who OWNS those customer-paid funds. Uber argues the funds due to the driver are separately provided by Uber to the driver, based on the terms of a contract between the driver and Uber, and are determined independently of the price the seller pays.

    If the money is Uber's property, then they're not a facilitator - they're a market participant. That's huge.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4