Antitrust Law Suit, Union and Conspiracy allegations Uber Technologies Inc. continues to battle with law suits regarding several issues in violation of the antitrust law. The question “who are Uber’s drivers (Gersham, 2016)?” have yet to be answered (Gersham, 2016). In California the class action suit on Uber’s driver status is still in question, “employees or independent contractors (Gersham, 2016). While in Manhattan there is an unusual antitrust case where the federal court is trying to answer a simpler question, “what is Uber (Gersham, 2016)?” Customers complained that Uber is not a product or a service, but a conspiracy (Gersham, 2016). In 2014, Spencer Meyer and on the behalf of others affected by Uber’s price fixing algorithms is suing the defendant Travis Kalanick, who is the chief executive officer and co-founder of Uber Technologies, Inc (Spencer Meyer vs. Travis Kalanick, 2016). The allegations includes; a business plan that encourages fix prices among competitors while taking a cut of the profit, the classification of drivers as independent, and that they are only a technology …show more content…
,” in another statement she said. “We believe the settlement we have been able to negotiate...provides significant benefits—both monetary and non-monetary—that will improve the work lives of the drivers and justifies this compromise result (Webber, 2016).” Many believe that this was a smart move by Uber to give up a small concession of $100 million and avoid going to trial set for June 2016. Losing this case at trial would force Uber to recognize its drivers as employees, provide health insurance and auto expenses which would amount to billions of dollars and reduce their profit margin (Webber,
Working together, Carnegie and Vanderbilt had created an industrial machine so powerful, that nothing stood in its path. This is much similar to how Microsoft has monopolized the computer software industry by eliminating competition and using questionable means of obtaining their place on the hierarchy of corporations in the bus...
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
Kay’s argument talks about the rideshare service “Uber” and how they are taking over the taxi industry. Weaknesses found in Kay’s article is when he makes Uber look bad when talking about their flashy and innovative app, which seems like he is promoting it and with a little more research, Kay can find other apps that are similar to Uber. He sounds tongue-in-cheek when writing it. Secondly, Kay is lacking evidence to support what he is trying to say in his article because his points are too weak and basic. Finally, this article left the reader wondering what is he really trying to prove in his argument about Uber since he seems to be all over the place with his arguments. Overall, this article was very weak and not
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
Self-driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam. March 19/18, New York Times.
DriveNow is a joint venture of the automobile manufacturer BMW Group and the car rental company Sixt SE. The carsharing provider was founded in Munich, Germany in 2011 and now offers its services in four other German cities, as well as in London, Vienna, Copenhagen and Stockholm. In 2014, DriveNow was the carsharing operator with most customers in Germany (Book and Fasse, 2014) and had 500,000 customers worldwide for the first time in 2015 (Lilly, 2015). The service has promptly announced an enhanced international expansion. Accordingly, DriveNow wants to start operations in ten North American cities, as well as in up to 15 European cities. In the past, DriveNow was already operating in San Francisco, California until the service had to retreat again due to strict regulations of San Francisco’s municipality (Knauer,
While many people are all about autonomous cars and the benefits that they will bring to society, there are people who oppose driver less cars. Google has faced major censure from critics that are uneasy with the method that the automobile will u...
There are a lot of positive reports about the benefits working for Uber has compared to working for a taxi company. Cab drivers have to pay exponential rates to lease cabs; Uber drivers have the freedom to drive cars they own. Many former cab drivers have switched to Uber due to the personal financial benefits (“Uber isn’t Just Good For…”). There have been some reports of inappropriate
First, driverless cars cannot currently function in extreme weather such as snow. Thompson points out in his article, “No Parking Here” that this limitation makes it unlikely that they will pass safety standards in various regions of the United States and around the world (Thompson 22). Additionally, the advent of autonomous cars will have significant economic ramifications because, as noted by Biba in his article “Carmageddon,” this transition will displace almost all driving related occupations. Despite the massive scale of such a displacement, Biba contends that its consequences are still “unclear” and its exact implications will remain unknown until its occurrence (Biba 31). Another commonly held concern is that self-driving cars will be used to collect data on passengers’ transportation habits that will be sold to advertising companies. The Trends E-Magazine article “Driverless Cars: Coming to Your Streets Sooner Than You Think,” comments on this concern, specifying that passengers will need to accept “giving up some privacy in exchange for convenience” (Trends E-Magazine
In this article, journalist Tali Arbel from the Associated Press explains the implications of the recent decision on Net Neutrality. In December, the FCC voted to overturn Net Neutrality, a set of laws dictating that all data on the internet must be treated equally by internet providers. Arbel goes on to say that without Net Neutrality protections, internet providers such as Verizon, Comcast, and the like will have the power to charge services like Amazon more for faster access to customers, as well as slow down or block content they disagree with. Arbel then lists the responses of the largest internet providers when asked whether they would consider using this new power. According to Arbel, “Three said they had ‘no plans’ for paid prioritization,
In July 12, The New York Times reported a news: “Inside the self-driving Tesla fatal accident”, which again caused enormous debates on whether self-driving cars should be legal or not.
Businesses like this have a large amount of influence, but this influence shouldn’t allow a company to hold a near monopoly over a certain commodity. Over the years, Monsanto has bought out the seed businesses of their competition and assimilated them into its own company. By doing so, it has severely limited farmers to only buying their seed (Shiva 150-151). Recently it has been estimated that Monsanto soybean seeds are responsible for the production of around ninety percent of soybeans in the United States (Barlett & Steele 134). Yet no one, not even the government, is concerned about Monsanto nearing a monopoly over the crop. Very few prioritize soybeans, something limited to rural farmers, but the only way Monsanto and their seed would be further regulated is if there were enough of a public outcry to warrant action against the company. The truth is that farmers are too far removed from the majority of the public. Most of America isn’t privy to the experience of Monsanto’s litigious nature, or the company’s ridiculous control over its seeds. It is, however, not our government’s fault that action has yet to be taken; it is also our responsibility to know what occurs in our country. We, as a public, need to take action against the overbearing control that Monsanto, and other large companies, has over our food and create a unified
The families of those who were injured or killed in car accidents are willing to be compensated a total of $600 million instead of suing GM executives.
Class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers will likely follow to help owners recoup the “diminished value” of their vehicles. When a fix is announced, it is expected that the cars will lose performance and suffer a corresponding decline in fuel economy.