Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 178 posts

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#11

Post by EarthMephit »

joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them).

If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#12

Post by lysp »

andyferris wrote: post #5
farhanhubble wrote: post #2

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.

Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after.

So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out.

It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment.

As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#13

Post by kevingadd »

NoPicklez wrote: post #10
mvdtnz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.

They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead.

In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#14

Post by weq »

NoPicklez wrote: post #10
mvdtnz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.

The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol.

This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#15

Post by lannisterstark »

EarthMephit wrote: post #11
joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last?

Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#16

Post by zeofig »

joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

They broke the law. Furthermore Uber's competitive advantages are fueled by incredibly dangerous financial practices. In the kind of "any other scenario" you're alluding to, the new kid on the block typically isn't infused with tens of billions of VC.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#17

Post by farhanhubble »

lozenge wrote: post #8
farhanhubble wrote: post #2

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.

But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#18

Post by whiterknight »

joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

Yep and government can continue to squeeze because their options are leave (immediately replaced with competitor apps) or give them their cut.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#19

Post by jazzyjackson »

lannisterstark wrote: post #15
EarthMephit wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#20

Post by Retric »

farhanhubble wrote: post #17
lozenge wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.

But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
Post reply on HN