- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Class Action Suit filed against Uber, and Lyft for price-fixing
Price-fixing by such giant Companies deprives the drivers of economic independence
In a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court, a group of drivers for Uber Technologies Inc and Lyft Inc accused the Companies of unfairly controlling how much the passengers will pay for their rides.
In the antitrust lawsuit, the Companies are accused of violating California antitrust law, and state law prohibiting unfair business practices.
It is stated by the drivers (plaintiff in the present suit) that if they offer much less prices, it would provide the driver with the most competitive compensation. However, they are restricted by the Companies to do so.
It is further stated that by doing so, the consumers end up paying more, and the drivers, as a result, pay less.
An Uber spokesperson said in a statement that the "complaint misconstrues both the facts and the applicable law and we intend to defend ourselves accordingly."
The Complaint further states that even though the drivers are treated as independent contractors, the prices are nonetheless dictated by the Companies. It was also alleged that the hidden algorithms of the Companies which determine the rider's cost and driver's pay are not disclosed to the drivers and the riders.
The vertical price rising is harmful to both the drivers and the riders.
Through this class action lawsuit, the drivers seek to prohibit the Companies from fixing prices through hidden algorithms and use transparent mechanisms to determine the prices. The drivers also seek treble damages to remedy their compressed compensation.