Cab Drivers Push Back Against Uber and Lyft Ridesharing Companies

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Online ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft are facing several unfair competition class action lawsuits from various taxi and limousine drivers in the a number of cities including Albuquerque and Atlanta.

Uber and Lyft are San Francisco based ridesharing companies with a strong online presence and have gained a large following of young smartphone users. Instead of owning their vehicles  and hiring individual drivers to operate said rides like a traditional taxi and limo service, Uber and Lyft allow everyday drivers to use their own cars to register with their company online and choose the riders they would like to pick up in their area.

Currently, Uber operates out of 70 cities in 40 different countries and Lyft operates out of 60 cities solely within the United States, making both of the ridesharing websites a real monetary threat to cab and limo services, especially considering that Uber and Lyft charge their riders by the mile, much like traditional cab companies.

In retaliation, cab companies in Albuquerque filed an unfair competition class action lawsuit against Lyft and Uber, claiming that these ridesharing companies put their customers at risk by refusing to register as a regular transportation service and operate under the same laws and regulations as Cab companies.

Albuquerque Cab Co. and 20 other New Mexico cab companies have banded together in this Uber and Lyft class action litigation alleging that because Uber and Lyft operate as transportation services for hire, then according to the Motor Carrier Act, these companies and their drivers should be registered and regulated.

Uber and Lyft drivers are independent drivers operating their own cars and are not certified by the state. Therefore, the plaintiffs claim, these drivers are not held to the same driving standards or intensive background checks as cab drivers making Uber and Lyft drivers a potential danger to public safety.

Similarly, Atlanta’s taxi industry has filed an unfair competition class action lawsuit against Uber in Georgia Superior Court alleging the ridesharing website violate ride-for-hire city code and diminishes the value of Atlanta’s Certificates of Public Necessity and Convenience (CPNCs).

CPNCs (also known as taxi medallions) are licenses bought through the city or through another medallion owner that allows an individual to operate a taxi. Considering the limited number of CPNCs, they are quite valuable and also aid in regulating the number and activity of taxi cabs in the city of Atlanta and other cities where similar medallions are used.

The Uber Atlanta unfair competition class action lawsuit alleges:

“Uber illegally operates as a taxicab business as it advertises and solicits business for its drivers, dispatches the calls and chargescustomers via credit cards based on measured time and calculations of mileage through the use of GPS and ‘smartphones.’  As a result, Uber has damaged the property values of the CPNCs and its interference with Plaintiffs’ contractual and property rights has lessened the value of CPNCs to their owners and/or the taxi drivers who pay weekly and/or monthly rents for their use.”

The cab drivers and companies in this Uber class action lawsuit are seeking an injunction to prevent Uber and similar companies from operating in Atlanta, disgorgement of profits, and payment of monetary damages by Uber to the participating Atlanta cab companies.

In Atlanta, Albuquerque, Detorit, and Ann Arbor, Uber and Lyft have been served cease and desist orders concerning the safety issues for their drivers and riders, though both companies have allegedly continued to operate their business.

The Atlanta Uber Unfair Competition Class Action Lawsuit is McCandliss, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 2 014CV251025, in the U.S. Superior Court of Fulton County of the State of Georgia.