21–30 of 178 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
I can accept an argument where it was not fit-for-purpose for a tech-era reinterpretation of how vetted drivers deliver this service. Despite that, I think you're probably reaching if you were to try to tell me that you don't understand why the prevailing legislation existed in order to ensure passengers were picked up by vetted, known drivers whose identities were known and who could face recourse if they scammed passengers (e.g. by driving them around in circles to inflate fares), held passengers hostage or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.