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.
On Feb. 3, an antitrust class action lawsuit was filed against the popular ride-hail companies Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., as well as Miami-Dade County, alleging that these “rogue” companies have violated the Florida Antitrust Act with the help of the county.
Plaintiff Christopher Davis, who works as the chief executive for Professional Chauffeur Transportation Services, filed this Uber-Lyft antitrust class action lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages, citing allegations that Uber and Lyft engaged in tortious interference, as well as committed violations against Florida’s Antitrust Act.
While Uber and Lyft are both fighting antitrust class action lawsuits in various states across the nation, this in one of the first times that state’s county has been involved in an Uber-Lyft lawsuit, as this class action lawsuit also seeks an injunction against Florida’s Miami-Dade County for not fully enforcing antitrust laws.
“The defendant county has known of the continuing illegal violations of its Code of Ordinances by defendants Uber and Lyft for some time, but has refused to enforce its code against said defendants, which perpetuates the criminal violations of their drivers, the loss of revenue by the plaintiffs, and the loss of protection to the riding public and public at large,” the Uber-Lyft class action lawsuit alleges.
State laws have specific requirements that companies must adhere to and that county officials should enforce in order to provide public transportation for hire. For example, the Uber-Lyft antitrust class action lawsuit states that transportation companies like Uber and Lyft must provide documentation for chauffeur registration for each employed driver, passenger service company license, background checks for all employed drivers, for-hire license medallions for certain vehicles, the county’s inspection of vehicles, liability insured vehicles, and specific wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
Additionally, there are specific licenses required by ride-hailing companies in order to accept fare for rides to and from Miami International Airport and PortMiami. According to the Uber-Lyft class action lawsuit, it is illegal for a company or its drivers to advertise itself as a “vehicles for hire” without all the proper licenses.
Furthermore, the class action lawsuit alleges that Uber and Lyft essentially “are rogue companies that are operating ‘for hire transportation services’ by the use of a telephonic app system by which they direct unlicensed drivers who are operating their own unmarked personal vehicles to pick up fares for delivery to specific destinations including but not limited to the Miami International Airport and the Miami Port Authority, a/k/a PortMiami.”
According to the Uber-Lyft antitrust class action lawsuit, plaintiff Davis seeks to represent himself as well as a proposed Class that would include “companies legally licensed to operate in Miami-Dade County,” which would include licensed chauffeur, taxi, and jitney transportation service companies. Class Members would also include individual drivers who paid allegedly paid for taxi cab medallions, and the riding public at large.
As for the antitrust claims against the Miami-Dade County brought forth in this Uber-Lyft class action lawsuit, Davis does recognize that the county has arrested Uber and Lyft drivers, impounded their vehicles, issued traffic citations, and recognized the companies’ illegal conduct. However, despite these actions, the plaintiff claims that if the county had actually enforced all transportation rules against Uber and Lyft, then the companies and the their drivers would have lost fares and would have been put out of business.
The plaintiff and the Class are represented by Ronald S. Guralnick PA.
The Uber-Lyft Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is Davis et al. v. Miami-Dade County et al., Case No. 2015-2645-CA-01, in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.