New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared Sunday that he would sign an executive order to divest funds from any company or organization in his state participating in the Boycott, Divestment, or Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic pressure. The Palestinian-led movement targets corporations and products that contribute to the violation of Palestinian rights, and calls for sanctions to be placed on the Israeli state.

Cuomo’s announcement took place Sunday at the Harvard Club in New York, the same day that the Governor participated in the Celebrate Israel parade along with Mayor Bill de Blasio, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and other public figures, as well as celebrities, organizations, and companies. Cuomo followed his announcement with a series of tweets in which he harshly criticized the movement and its participants:

We made a unity trip to Israel because they were under attack. Today, Israel is under attack on a different level. https://t.co/O3oXmEdnXp

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

This BDS movement is an economic attack and generating a corporate enemy to Israel. We cannot allow that to happen.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

I am signing an Executive Order that says very clearly we are against the BDS movement. If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

Why a state government feels the need to get involved in one of the most complex foreign policy issues of our time is unclear, but Cuomo’s actions highlight the deep roots of the U.S.-Israel alliance, in which an “attack” on Israel is treated as an attack toward the U.S. The official executive order declares that New York and Israel “enjoy a special historical relationship and share a commonly forged cultural bond,” and that the state “stands firmly with Israel.”

The order also declared the governor’s intentions to compile a blacklist of sorts, targeting companies and institutions that have participated in BDS activities and threatening to divest if they are proven to have participated in the movement. Once an organization has been added to the publicly-available list, it’s not easy to be removed: it must submit “written evidence” demonstrating that it no longer participates in BDS activities, and a “good faith” determination will be made by the Commissioner of General Services. The punishments make it nearly impossible for any organization to get involved in the BDS movement without facing major repercussions.

The order is already being criticized by many for being a blatant violation of free speech; Palestine Legal calls it a “dangerous precedent reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

The list of companies and organizations participating in BDS will be compiled in the next 180 days, according to the order. Once released, it will undoubtedly have a major impact on a large number of businesses throughout the state.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Bans Boycotts Against Israel appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

The American police have taken on a new level of stereotypical behavior–the kind that they have been notoriously alleged to partake in, yet vehemently refuse to admit. However, they do not have to admit it this time–their words, followed by their request for action will provide ample evidence to show that they are working hard to further discriminate against the black population. Their new adversary? Beyonce. Yes, Queen B is being targeted by a number of police unions as an individual unworthy of protection due to her blanketed and generalizing depiction of law enforcement and her advocacy for the #BlackLivesMatter social movement. Sounding ironic? It should be.

Before addressing Beyonce’s advocacy and creative interpretation, I would like to make the following observations: John Lennon worked tirelessly to develop a peaceful revolution through song, performance, and lyric. Paul McCartney continued that very public and non-discreet political picture. U2 and Bono have been devoted, active, and outspoken pioneers for Africa in the fight against HIV-AIDS and promoting education, often times criticizing the lavish lifestyles of the rich and famous and taking a stark political stance. Bruce Springsteen has had a longstanding devotion to his outspoken political views, dedicating songs to his beliefs and publicly providing support for various political candidates. And who could forget the Dixie Chicks’ controversial stance against the War in Iraq?

These megastars represent a short list of artists and performers who have taken a political stance, used performance and creativity to depict political ideologies, or issued a statement based on a personal view or belief. However, none of those artists have suffered the same level of scrutiny and extreme backlash like the Queen B.

On Saturday, February 6, the diva released a video for her first new song since 2014, entitled “Formation.” The video instigated rapid fire responses about Beyonce’s exploitation of a marginalized and traumatized black New Orleans’ community, particularly post Hurricane Katrina, her open representation of southern blackness, more specifically that of a southern black woman, and resistance practices exercised by black individuals and communities.

The next day, she followed up the release of her video with a live Halftime Show performance of the song during Super Bowl 50.

Beyonce’s 2-day delivery was calculated and intense. Her message was important–that formation and organization are necessary to combat racial-based violence and embark on a path of social movement. Yet, her delivery was controversial–utilizing the black tragedy within New Orleans and exploiting the voiceless and marginalized community as her backdrop without ever giving the appropriate credit to those, like Messy Mya–a “household NOLA name” who was shot and killed at the age of 22, that provided Beyonce with the tools to tell a story that she portrayed as her own and solely for the “paper” that she sings so freely about. Whether one agrees with Queen B’s message or her in-your-face delivery, it is quite blatantly open for discussion and debate.

However, what is not readily open for discussion is the number of various police unions that are calling for an outright boycott of law enforcement for Beyonce’s upcoming world tour. While the police state that they would respond should Beyonce need help at any time, they are calling for a boycott that “would involve officers refusing to work paid off-duty security for the event, not refusing to perform regular law enforcement duties.” So why are privately-hired individuals who have the right to turn down a job boycotting under the entity of a police union that is, by law, required to defend and serve? Do they not realize that by boycotting the performance they are also refusing to protect all of the thousands of individuals in attendance? Is this a public entity’s agenda presented within the vehicle of a private sector approach? Is a police union an appropriate outlet for boycott under the circumstances? And more so, what kind of message are the police sending?

Arguably, one could inquire about Beyonce’s message and what she is trying to convey to the American people. Like Rudy Giuliani, we could be critical of her approach and view it as a vicious and very public attack on law enforcement. However, that would be blatantly ignoring the fact that Beyonce is an entertainer protected by the ideologies and legal complexities of free speech who does not possess any kind of duty to the public. She is free to say, create, depict, and perform as she pleases so long as she stays within the confines of legality–which she did.

The police, however, live by a different standard than the pop star. Furthermore, as private individuals hired for a private event to serve as security detail, they can absolutely boycott and not take the job. But is it fair to accuse Beyonce of being a cop-hater and spreading anti-police rhetoric? Does advocacy of the #BlackLivesMatter movement automatically associate one with an anti-law enforcement campaign? Are the two mutually exclusive or can we support the #BlackLivesMatter movement while also appreciating the danger and difficulty with which officers do their jobs?

The Miami Fraternal Order of the Police, the Sergeants Benevolent Association in New York City, as well as the Tamp and Nashville police unions seem to find the two mutually exclusive and have urged their respective associations and organizations to boycott the tour. Other police organizations, such as the Raleigh police, are choosing not to boycott the concert held by Beyonce in their respective state.

Like Giuliani stated, we have “to respect the uniform, not to make it appear as if they are the enemy.” Well, I think that applies to all people, not just “the uniform.” Even celebrities have a right to speak out against issues such as police brutality, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the delivery of their messages.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Officers Boycotting Beyonce: Isn’t this a Little Ironic? appeared first on Law Street.

When the Academy Awards revealed its nominations last week for the 88th Oscars, people couldn’t help but notice that all of the actors and actresses named have something in common:

All of them are white.

That’s right, for the second year in a row not a single person of color was nominated for any of the four highly coveted acting categories–and the industry isn’t happy about it.

Nominations are #OscarsSoWhite all over again https://t.co/o6MImkEfYR pic.twitter.com/vHsB1orcLv

— Mashable (@mashable) January 14, 2016

The diversity shutout spawned critics to start the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite to voice their disapproval, and on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday Monday, filmmaker Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith both announced in separate statements that they would be boycotting the February 28th ceremony.

In an Instagram post Lee explained that both he and his wife could not support the “lily white” awards, writing:

How Is It Possible For The 2nd Consecutive Year All 20 Contenders Under The Actor Category Are White? And Let’s Not Even Get Into The Other Branches. 40 White Actors In 2 Years And No Flava At All. We Can’t Act?! WTF!!

Spike Lee will not be attending the Oscars because #OscarsSoWhite pic.twitter.com/gODpStApjv — Black Ballad (@Blackballaduk) January 18, 2016

Lee continued:

Dr. King Said “There Comes A Time When One Must Take A Position That Is Neither Safe, Nor Politic, Nor Popular But He Must Take It Because Conscience Tells Him It’s Right”.

Pinkett Smith, whose husband Will Smith was not nominated for his leading performance in the NFL head injury biopic “Concussion,” echoed her disapproval over the votes in a Facebook video message.

The actress asked that people join her in boycotting the awards saying,

Maybe it is time that we pull back our resources and we put them back into our communities and our programs and we make programs for ourselves that acknowledge us in ways that we see fit, that are just as good as the so-called ‘mainstream’ one.

She then added,

Begging for acknowledgement, or even asking, diminishes dignity and diminishes power. And we are a dignified people, and we are powerful.

Fellow actors Idris Elba, who was snubbed for his acclaimed role in “Beasts of No Nation,” and David Oyelowo, who failed to get an Oscar nomination last year for his portrayal of MLK in “Selma,” also joined in on criticizing the all-white line up. But not everyone supported Lee and Pinkett Smith’s stand against the Academy.

Actress Janet Hubert, who played Will Smith’s mom on the hit show “Fresh Prince,” slammed her former costar’s wife in her own video response, calling Pinkett Smith’s boycott ironic.

Hubert took some nasty shots at the couple saying,

You ain’t Barack and Michelle Obama. And y’all need to get over yourselves. You have a huge production company that you only produce your friends and family and yourself. So you are a part of Hollywood, you are part of the system that is unfair to other actors. So get real.

On Monday, the Academy’s African American President Cheryl Boone Isaacs shared in a statement that she is “heartbroken and frustrated” over the lack of diversity. Boone promised to work toward reviewing the organization’s membership recruitment in order to ensure diversity is a priority moving forward, but as Oyelowo pointed out, the votes are not her fault.

Since the voters are made up of predominantly white males, it should come as no surprise that individuals getting the most nominations across the board happen to be both white and male. If the Academy can’t begin to accurately reflect the nation’s diversity, the integrity of its awards will continue to be called into question. With the award show still weeks away, it will be interesting to see how the boycott affects the night.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lack of Diversity in Nominations Has Black Actors Boycotting the Oscars appeared first on Law Street.

A Maryland family is defending themselves against One Million Moms after the conservative parenting group launched a boycott against American Girl, alleging they “promoted sin” by featuring the family.

The controversy began after 11-year-old Amaya Scheer and her family were featured in last month’s edition of the magazine in an article titled “Forever Family.” In the article Scheer, who is adopted, talks about the charity her family started, which provides foster children with “comfort cases” filled with clothes and toiletries. The cause is deeply personal because before Scheer and her three siblings were adopted by their gay dads, they were all in foster care.

American Girl features a same-sex family article, One Million Moms attack it: https://t.co/iFTrEvTAzI via @RawStory pic.twitter.com/qMAFWaMX8Z

— Slant (@SlantNews) November 9, 2015

The story was meant to showcase the amazing work that this unique family is doing for their community, but One Million Moms claimed American Girl “could have chosen another child to write about and remained neutral in the culture war.” The organization justified the boycott on its website writing:

American Girl is attempting to desensitize our youth by featuring a family with two dads. If your child has not seen this yet, then be careful she is not exposed and can avoid a premature conversation she is far too young to understand.

First of all it is ridiculous that this organization believes the magazine should have passed over Scheer’s stellar accomplishments to instead feature a more “neutral” family (presumably one less gay and less ethnic). American Girl’s positive representation of an LGBT-parented family in its pages isn’t an attempt to brainwash conservative youth. Instead it’s an example of charity, compassion, and family–plain and simple.

I fully understand that every parent is entitled to raise their children with their personal set of morals and values, but trying to keep children in a homosexual-free bubble is futile. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 of the United States, and more and more families will begin looking like the Scheers. So these conversations are going to happen one way or another, and I would hope parents would use it as an opportunity to teach about love and respect, rather than hate and fear.

Rob Scheer told Good Day DC on Monday that he expected a certain amount of criticism, but was shocked that the attack came from a group of “moms.” Scheer said,

These were moms! These were moms that were saying that my family was wrong, that the love that my husband and I are giving our four kids and what we’re doing was wrong.

He then pointed out,

I would expect moms not to say these type of things about our family. But at the same time, these are a ‘million moms,’ they could really be helping the 364,000 kids in foster care.

[…]

This is our family and it works for us. And you know what? We have four amazing kids that we adopted out of foster care. These are four kids that have fulfilled our life more than we ever thought.

But luckily Amaya Scheer didn’t need the help of her fathers or my liberal rant in order to fire back at her motherly haters. Instead she articulated the perfect response ever when a news host asked her what she would say to those people who don’t understand her family. She stated:

“I would say ‘This is none of your business.'”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 11-Year-Old Girl Shames Conservative Moms’ “Anti-Gay” American Girl Doll Boycott appeared first on Law Street.

Love don’t cost a thing, or at least that’s how it used to be on the swipetastic mobile matchmaking app Tinder. But last week the popular location based dating service rolled out a new paid feature called Tinder Plus. The update has many accusing the company of being ageist.

With Plus, premium users are granted access to features called “Passport” and “Rewind.” If you’ve swiped through all the available singles in your area “Passport” allows you to change your location to connect with people anywhere around the world. Anyone who has ever regretted a swipe may also enjoy “Rewind,” which lets you re-do your last swipe. All in all these aren’t make-or-break features for the app, but their pricing is now under fire.

Tinder Plus users over the age of 30 will have to pay about $20 a month for the upgrade, but younger users under 30 will only have to pay about $10 a month. This gap has older singles protesting the app using #boycottTinder on Twitter, saying it’s discriminatory and arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay more for the same perks.

Tinder’s Vice President of Corporate Communications Rosette Pambakian, defended the age-related pricing telling TakePart via email that it actually benefits the company’s bottom line. She explained saying:

During our testing we’ve learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained, and need a lower price to pull the trigger.

We’ve priced Tinder Plus based on a combination of factors, including what we’ve learned through our testing, and we’ve found that these price points were adopted very well by certain age demographics.

I’m not sure I buy that excuse. Pambakian elaborated by equating Tinder’s price tier with similar student discounts offered by the music-streaming service Spotify for premium services. But in my opinion it looks more like Tinder thinks being older and single makes you desperate, and as a result willing to cough up more money for swipes. Its not like they even need the extra cash, as valuations of the company range around $1 billion.

On a lighter note, if older people are discouraged from using Tinder, we wouldn’t end up with great videos like the following, where a 20-something year old young man sets his grandfather up on Tinder “dates.” Fair warning though, the video below, while adorable, contains some NSFW language:

In regards to demographics, Tinder co-founder Justin Mateen told the Guardian:

Early on, over 90% of our user base was aged between 18 and 24. Today, that number is about 51%. 13-17 year-olds are now over 7%, 25-32 year-olds are about 32%, 35-44 is about 6.5% and the remainder are older than 45.

Based on these figures it’s clear their core demographic is changing. But charging people for bonus features may not be the solution when it comes to legitimizing the “hookup app” as a real dating source. Only time will tell when it comes to whether or not Tinder execs will adjust its pricing due to public disapproval, or whether anyone will accuse them of ageism more seriously. My guess is this Tinder boycott won’t last long when people’s index fingers begin twitching from swipe withdrawal.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Singles Boycotting Tinder Over Alleged Ageism appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.

The days of hailing down a cab may become a distant memory for those with a smart phone in their hand. Uber has reinvented the ridesharing industry with its user-friendly application. Created in San Francisco in 2009, Uber now connects customers with available drivers in cities all around the world.

Although generally loved by customers, Uber has faced many obstacles since its launch, including competition and government intervention. It has been criticized for disregarding regulations and carrying poor or no insurance on its drivers. Read on for an examination of the policy and incidents that have shaped Uber into the company it is today.

Click the image for more detailed information.

What is Uber?

Quick and inexpensive transportation can be challenging to find when you live in a city. That’s where Uber comes in. When a customer opens up the application, she is greeted with a map displaying the cars for hire in the vicinity and the estimated wait time for pick up. Uber is especially attractive because the same quality of service transitions from day to night. Business people can order a car on the way to a meeting just as easily as someone can use it as a designated driver after a night out.

The process of ordering a car is incredibly simple:

• Download the app and enter your payment information
• Set pickup location
• Choose the type of car you want to ride in
• Tap request and track the reserved car’s location

The services provided by Uber are vast. Originally the company offered black cars (UberBLACK), which are luxury vehicles including Escalade SUVs, Lincoln Town Cars, and Mercedes. Now with the implementation of the low-cost option, UberX, the company is able to attract a wider breadth of the market.

UberX drivers use their own cars, carry insurance and a valid driver’s license, and pass a background and DMV check. UberBlack drivers must also have the commercial licenses required by the city in which they operate.

Does Uber Have a Competitor? Possibly.

Uber shares many similarities with the ridesharing company Lyft. Founded in San Francisco, Lyft operates in 60 cities in 2014. While Uber and Lyft provide almost identical services, Lyft has been met with great opposition in New York City. Under the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), Manhattan has stringent taxi regulations by which Uber abided. Lyft has not yielded to city and state regulations such as ensuring that all drivers are commercially licensed and that their vehicles are registered with the TLC. The attorney general’s office has filed suit and accused Lyft of eight violations, including using vehicles that are not registered with the TLC and hiring drivers who have not obtained the correct insurance and licensing.

In an interview with Buzzfeed, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declared in reference to Lyft evading the regulation:

“They’re allowed to try and we’re allowed to stop them.”

Lyft had planned on launching its peer-to-peer model, but because of the state’s officials and the TLC it postponed the launch. The company has agreed to work with the TLC to ensure that its cars and drivers are fully licensed.

Regulations

Are Drivers Insured?

The legality of Uber differs from city to city as each jurisdiction has different regulations pertaining to public transportation services. While taxi drivers have been subjected to these guidelines for years, Uber has been accused of bypassing many rules that govern taxi services.  Insurance of the Uber drivers has been a source of concern from legislators and the general public. To clear up any ambiguity, Uber announced that “all ridesharing transportation partners are covered by best-in-class commercial insurance coverage in the event of an accident.”

The insurance policies for UberX are:

• $1 million of liability coverage per incident
• $1 million of uninsured/underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage per incident
• $50,000 of contingent comprehensive and collision insurance
• No fault coverage in certain states
• $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 of contingent coverage between trips

The other Uber services (UberSUV, UberBLACK, and uberTAXI) are “provided by commercially licensed and insured partners and drivers.”

Price Caps

One of the best cases made by Uber opponents is the company’s history of hiking up prices during times of high demand — a practice that sets apart Uber from traditional taxis. While taxis have a fixed fare, the price of Uber depends on the demand. Schneiderman criticized Uber for “charging as much as eight times its base rate during storms.” To avoid this manipulation, Uber and the Attorney General reached an agreement that during emergencies there will be a limit to peak pricing in New York. This agreement was the beginning of Uber’s new policy of limiting surge pricing nationwide during emergencies. In addition to limiting price increases, when an emergency causes a fare to be elevated the company plans on donating 20 percent of profits to the American Red Cross.

Negative Responses

Death of a Child

Tragedy struck a San Francisco family when a six-year-old girl was killed after being hit by an Uber driver. At the time of the accident the driver did not have a passenger in his car nor was he on the way to pick someone up, which is why Uber claims it should not be held accountable. The parents of the deceased have brought wrongful death suits against both Uber and the driver.

Alleged Abduction

After becoming intoxicated while partying at nightclubs in Los Angeles, a woman was put into an Uber by a valet. Instead of driving the woman home, the Uber driver allegedly kidnapped her and brought her to a hotel with the intent to sexually assault her. When the woman awoke, she found the driver shirtless lying next to her in bed and immediately left to call the police. Uber spokesperson Lane Kasselman stated after learning of the event that “the facts are unknown at this stage and it’s certainly unclear that this is an Uber-related incident, as the driver in question was not logged in, connected to or operating on the platform at the time… Nothing is more important to Uber than the safety of our riders.”   Even if Uber is not accountable for this crime, the incident tarnishes the brand.

Protests in Europe

America is not the only place where Uber is meeting resistance. Protests against the ridesharing company have gone across the Atlantic to European nations. In London, more than 10,000 cabdrivers participated in an hour-long protest. London has especially stringent regulations on its cab drivers. The process to get a license is rigorous and quite demanding: cab drivers must have knowledge of the London streets and be able take alternative routes without consulting a map. Because they have this extensive knowledge, they have an intimate understanding of the city and are regarded as experts.

When Uber arrived in London with drivers who bypassed the intense training that London-based drivers are subjected to, it should almost be expected that cab drivers would halt their services in protest. Mario Dalmedo, a cab driver in London, said:

“There’s room for everyone, but you have to obey the law.”

In addition to losing their jobs, drivers are concerned about how Uber is not following the rules and fails to pay the same level of taxes.

Uber maintains that it is providing competition in a market that has not been introduced to new services in a long time.

Virginia: Cease and Desist

In early 2014 the state of Virginia levied more than $35,000 in fines against Uber and Lyft for not having the proper permits in Northern Virginia. Following those charges, Richard D. Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, sent Uber and Lyft cease and desist letters. Uber and Lyft have applied for brokers’ licenses to operate in Virginia since receiving the letter. Also, both companies have applied for temporary authority that would allow them to continue operations until they receive licenses.

Kaitlin Durkosh, Uber spokeswoman, stated that the company has been working “in good faith with the DMV to create a regulatory framework for ridesharing.”

Conclusion

Since its inception, Uber has been faced with many regulatory challenges; however, its accessibility and innovation has transformed the startup into a legitimate threat to the taxicab industry. With strong customer loyalty and growing financial backing, Uber appears to be sticking around for the long haul.

Resources

Primary

Uber: Eliminating Ridesharing Insurance Ambiguity

Uber: Insurance For UberX With Ridesharing

Additional

Forbes: Lyft Pips Uber by Launching 24 Cities in One Day

Slate: Why Uber and Lyft Are Not Interchangeable Services in New York

BuzzFeed: New York Attorney General, Aide Slam Lyft Co-Founder

The New York Times: Uber Reaches Deal With New York on Surge Pricing in Emergencies

Bloomberg: Uber Faces Challenges in NY With Lyft Debut, Price Caps

Washington Post: Competition from UberX, Lyft has D.C. Taxis Crying Foul

Lyft: Lyft New York Update

Business Insider: Virginia Commonwealth DMV Orders Uber and Lyft to Cease and Desist

Washington Post: Uber and Lyft Working on Becoming Legal in Virginia

NBC: Uber Driver Arrested on Kidnap With Sexual Intent Charge

The New York Times: Traffic Snarls in Europe as Taxi Drivers Protest Against Uber

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Uber: Not Your Typical Taxi appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, the NBA came very close to having at least one playoff game boycotted by players due to the incendiary remarks made by former Clippers owner, Donald Sterling. Last week, rumors swirled that FIFA would be forced to cancel the World Cup due to the number of protests in Brazil. Both the NBA Finals and the start of the World Cup proceeded as planned however, and while their respective controversies remain newsworthy, these incidents joined the long history of near-cancellations not becoming tangibly disruptive. Will this ever change?

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, few major sporting events have been cancelled due to social unrest. The largest instigator of cancellations excluding work stoppages comes in the form of war. The 1916 Summer Olympics were cancelled due to the outbreak of World War I. In 1940 and 1944, both the Summer and Winter Olympics were cancelled due to World War II. FIFA also cancelled two World Cups due to World War II, while the International Ice Hockey Federation World Championships were also cancelled between 1939 and 1947.

Although world wars have ended, cooler heads have not necessarily prevailed. Public backlash, much like sports popularity, seems to grow dramatically in the age of twenty-four hour news coverage.  In 2008 the Dakar Road Rally was cancelled following the heavily reported murder of four French tourists in Muaritania over Christmas vacation. Al Qaeda later claimed responsibility and followed with more publicly reported threats, ultimately forcing the Amaury Sport Organization to save face and cancel the event.

Good guys have also used new technology to cancel sporting events. In 2012, the New York City Marathon was cancelled after public criticism following the decision to host the event during Hurricane Sandy recovery. Many New Yorkers took to Twitter and Facebook to spread the message by creating hash tags and Facebook groups calling for cancellation.

A year earlier, the Middle East played host to several national uprisings during the Arab Spring.  Related pressure from the movement, which was largely incited by social media,  led organizers of the Bahrain Grand Prix to cancel the event in 2011. In 2012 the race was almost cancelled again amid continued protest.

Tweeting, Facebooking, and YouTubing protests have galvanized followers into action much like aligned sports fans have used it to organize at their favorite bars to watch games. As these conventions grow more pervasive, it’s possible that protests through social media will gain more followers, and gain them earlier.  Following reports of corruption and poor working conditions, there are already at least four Facebook groups (like this one), a Twitter handle, and a host of YouTube videos calling for a boycott of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. FIFA may dismiss these efforts as a bunch of pissed off young people trying to ruffle feathers. And they may be right. But that’s also why they should be scared.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Agencia Brazil via Wikipedia].

Andrew Blancato

The post Sports History Repeats Itself as the World Cup Goes On Despite Social Unrest appeared first on Law Street.