Uber slapped with $7.3m fine for keeping quiet about driver accidents A Californian judge has ruled that Uber, by refusing to disclose particular business practices to state regulators, is in breach of the conditions under which it is allowed to operate in the state. The international controversy-courting ride-hailing service received a hard spanking on its home turf when an administrative law …
"Behrend, however, stated that the company will appeal the ruling which may delay enforcement of the deadline."
Of course it will. And it'll appeal the appeal. And appeal the venue. And the judge. And the law. And then raise an appeal in a federal circuit. And appeal that. And again. And once more. Perhaps to the supreme court.
Billions of dollars of investors money and the ability to drag shit out for decades turns boardroom calculus into "Is following this law/regulation inconvinient to us? Then ignore it, drag out any litigation, pay any chump fines they throw, and in the meantime obliterate the competition."
"Uber was admonished for keeping schtum about its vehicle accessibility information, details regarding accidents its drivers had been involved in, as well failing to disclose geographic information about where rides were requested and accepted – all information required to ensure consumers are not discriminated against because of their localities."
Isn't that the point of Uber, it charges different amounts given the route and current level of demand? Are Uber trying to cover up what they are actually doing?
This post has been deleted by its author
These guys are starting to act like Organized Crime, ignoring authorities and breaking the law at will.
I suspect it will take the government a while longer to get to the point where they say "no more", but once they do, Uber had better watch out. Bureaucrats can endure years of court fights taking an organization down a peg or two. Just ask Big Blue, Ma Bell, or MS how fighting with the government turned out.
> Just ask Big Blue, Ma Bell, or MS how fighting with the government turned out.
Actually, they'll probably tell you it's not that big a deal.
IBM dragged it out for (IIRC) about a decade and then got their choice of president elected who promptly returned the favour by getting all the investigations to go away.
Bell was broken up - but over the years the parts have re-combined.
MS - well they got the equivalent of telling a naughty kid to "don't do it again or ... I'll tell you not to do it again". Even in the EU where they actually lost, all they had to do was put up the "browser choice" screen for a while which was a farce since it was years since they'd seen off the competition. Probably the only painful part was having to document all their network protocols - anecdotally, going back "some years" MS's engineers used to talk to some of the Samba team at conferences and such in order to find out how the MS stuff worked !
It's a sad thought that we are reduced to having the government say "no more." And who controls that ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL government?
When it's Uber then Uber won't have a problem with them anymore. THEN Uber will be a problem. Until then, Uber is just another 'outsider' trying to upset the status quo.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
