On Tuesday, a group of drivers claimed that Uber and Lyft are working on anti-competitive practices by limiting the prices customers pay and the driver’s ability to choose vehicles to accept without penalty.
Drivers, along with advocacy group Rideshare Drivers United, have held a new legal debate in a state lawsuit over a long-term debate about the work situation of gig economy workers.
For years, Uber and Lyft have argued that drivers should be considered independent contractors rather than employees under labor law. That is, they bear their own costs and are usually not covered by unemployment or health insurance. In exchange, the company argued that drivers could set their time and maintain more independence than if they were employees.
However, in their complaint, filed in a senior court in San Francisco seeking the status of a class action, the three drivers gave Uber and Lyft true independence, even though they were treated as independent contractors. No, while limiting the way drivers work, the benefits and protection of employment status.
“They are building up the rules as they progress. One of the plaintiffs, Lyftand Uber driver Taje Gil in Orange County, California, said:” He added.
In 2020, Uber and Lyft campaigned drivers and voters in support of a voting bill in California that would lock in the status of an independent contractor for drivers.Both companies said such measures would help drivers by giving them flexibility, and Uber also said. California drivers can now set their own rates Proposal 22 as a sign of life if voters approve the voting bill.
Drivers have also increased visibility into where passengers want to travel before they accept the ride. The ballot passed before the judge overturned it.
Read more about Gig Economy
The following year, a new driver option was rolled back. The driver said he lost the ability to set his fare And now you need to meet the requirements, such as accepting 5 out of 10 rides, and check the travel details before accepting the trip.
Drivers now said they lack both the benefits of being an employee and the benefits of being an independent contractor. “I couldn’t see this as fair and rational,” Gil said.
Not being able to see the passenger’s destination before accepting the ride is especially troublesome, the driver said. It can sometimes lead to unexpected late-night trips to less cost-effective distant airports and unobtrusive destinations.
In the proceedings, drivers banned Uber and Lyft from “price-fixing ride-hailing services” and “withholding fare and destination data from drivers when presenting a ride,” giving drivers “transparency per mile.” I’m asking you to give. “Payment per minute or trip” instead of using a “hidden algorithm” to determine compensation.
Drivers have sued for antitrust reasons, saying that if they are classified as independent contractors, Uber and Lyft are interfering with the open market by limiting their way of working and the amount charged to passengers. Insist.
“Uber and Lyft are employers responsible for their employees under the Labor Standards Act, or powerful companies use market power to perform price-fixing and other actions that limit fair competition. We are bound by a banning law, “said the lawsuit.
Experts said complaints would be a long shot in federal courts where judges usually weigh antitrust claims against consumer welfare using “rules of reason.” Federal courts often recognize anti-competitive practices that may possibly benefit consumers.
However, experts said the California court could be sympathetic to at least some of the complaint’s allegations.
“If we apply some laws mechanically, we have a great advantage for plaintiffs in state courts, especially under California law,” said Josh P. Davis, Head of San Francisco Bay Area Office at Berger Montague. ..
“You might get a judge who says:’This is not federal law. This is state law. And apply it in an easy way and remove all the complexity of the gig economy. Looking at this, there is a law that this is not possible, “says Davis.
Peter Karstensen, an honorary professor of law at the University of Wisconsin, said he suspected that drivers would gain traction with their claims that Uber and Lift illegally set prices that drivers could charge. ..
However, Mr. Karstensen said state judges could rule in favor of plaintiffs on other so-called vertical detentions. Board between Monday and Friday. Judges may conclude that these incentives exist primarily to reduce competition between Uber and Lyft. This is because drivers are less likely to switch platforms and new gig platforms will have difficulty hiring drivers.
“You make it very difficult for a third party to get in,” Carstensen said.
Plaintiffs’ lawyer, David Seligman, said the proceedings could benefit from increased oversight of anti-competitive practices.
“I think policymakers, supporters and courts across the country are paying more attention and scrutinizing the ways dominant companies and companies are abusing power in the labor market,” Serigman said. Stated.
The rollback of options, such as setting their own prices, made it more difficult for drivers to make a living as a gig worker, especially as gas prices soared and competition between drivers began to return to pre-pandemic levels. say.
“It’s getting harder and harder to make money,” said another plaintiff, Ben Valdes, a Los Angeles driver. “Make it sloppy. There aren’t many things people can take.”
