Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

NAACP Issues Travel Advisory for Missouri

The NAACP has issued its first-ever statewide travel advisory for the state of Missouri. This announcement came after Senate Bill 43 passed the state legislature and was signed by Governor Eric Greitens. The new law makes it harder for employees to prove their protected class status in a lawsuit; critics, including the NAACP, say that it makes discrimination easier and dubbed it a “Jim Crow bill.”

The advisory is intended to let people of color and members of the LGBT community traveling through the state know what’s going on, and to be particularly vigilant. It cites recent instances of police brutality and discrimination in Missouri, and asks that everyone “warn your families, co-workers, and anyone visiting Missouri to beware of the safety concerns with travel in Missouri, notify members of your trade associations, social and civil organizations that they are traveling and living in Missouri at their own risk and subject to unnecessary search seizure and potential arrest, and file and seek help on any existing claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whistle blowing ASAP before your legal rights are lost.”

.@NAACP issues travel advisory for Missouri, the first in its 108-year history, after passage of “Jim Crow Bill” https://t.co/sEFbjOzQUa pic.twitter.com/N1UyXNEcqk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) August 2, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: August 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Since its recognizable logo first appeared on our phone screens in 2011, Uber has quickly risen to become ubiquitous in modern-day transportation, overtaking taxis in many cities. The ride-hailing company has cemented its status as a pillar of the sharing economy, while also battling countless lawsuits, protests, and government regulations over the years. The controversies reached a head in June 2017, when co-founder Travis Kalanick stepped down from his position as CEO. Read on for a glimpse into the events that led to Kalanick’s resignation.

Rise to Ride-Sharing Royalty

Uber’s growth as one of the world’s top ride-sharing companies was swift. It easily secured several rounds of funding, and became one of the most valuable startups worldwide. Uber has yet to go public, but is valued at $70 billion.

Uber’s impact on the market is cultural, as well as financial–the term “uberisation” has come to refer to other companies and industries that take after the company’s business model of eliminating the middleman and connecting customers directly to service providers. And, as The Economist writes, the word “uber” has become its own verb, like Facebook or Google.

Though competitors like Lyft have slowly built up steam, Uber still dominates the market. At the end of May, Uber’s U.S. market share was 77 percent, down from 84 percent earlier in the year. This decrease, experts say, is likely the effect of the seemingly endless controversies that have tainted Uber over its lifetime.

Early Disputes

Uber’s efforts to transform the transportation market have been met with resistance from the beginning. In a 2013 class-action lawsuit, a group of drivers sued Uber for its labor practices. The suit claims the drivers have been “misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance.” The company agreed to settle the suit for $100 million in 2016, but a federal judge denied the settlement and the case is still ongoing.

In the U.S. and worldwide, Uber has faced major scrutiny for operating in markets without adhering to local policies and procedures that regulate cabs. In 2014, several protests against the company broke out across Europe. These protests came to a head in 2015, when taxi drivers locked down the city of Paris, blocking roads, burning tires, and attacking drivers. The drivers considered Uber to be a form of “economic terrorism.”

“London Anti-Uber Taxi Protest” Courtesy David Holt : License (CC BY 2.0)

Uber is currently banned in Italy, Hungary, Denmark, and several other nations, in addition to some U.S. cities. In August 2016, Uber sold its presence in China to competitor Didi Chuxing, freeing it up to expand in other global markets. Today, the company operates in over 80 countries.

Over the years, Uber has come under fire for funneling millions into opposition research, both in plots to push out Lyft, its primary U.S. competitor, and to fight negative press coverage by “digging up dirt” on journalists. While these scandals have tarnished Uber’s image, 2017 has been an especially turbulent year for the company.

2017: A Year of Controversy

Uber’s controversies seemed to pile up at the beginning of 2017. When President Donald Trump’s travel ban was announced in January, protesters gathered at airports nationwide. While the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance ceased operations at JFK to participate in the protest, Uber continued picking up customers, fueling backlash from many who said the company was profiting from Islamophobia and deportation. The company later apologized, but not before the hashtag “#DeleteUber” began trending and rival company Lyft announced its support for the protesters, promising to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Toxic Culture

In February, Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a blog post documenting several incidents of sexual harassment during her time with the company. The post went viral and prompted Kalanick to hire former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the claims. In June, Holder presented the board with a report of the findings and series of recommendations to improve Uber’s workplace. One of the recommendations was to strip Kalanick of some of his power. Also in June, Uber fired 20 employees after an investigation unrelated to Holder’s revealed more evidence of bullying, harassment, and a “toxic” company culture.

Skirting the Rules

A few days after Fowler’s viral post was published, Uber was hit with a lawsuit from Waymo, a self-driving car offshoot of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Waymo alleged that Uber stole trade and patent secrets, focusing on actions by Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. Levandowski was fired from Uber in May, and a new filing in June revealed that Kalanick knew Levandowksi had possession of data from Google long before the Waymo suit was filed.

In March, The New York Times reported on Uber’s use of a technology called Greyball, which it employed primarily outside of the U.S., allowing drivers to evade local authorities in markets where the ride-hailing service had been banned. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in response.

“Travis Kalanick” Courtesy of TechCrunch : Licence (CC BY 2.0)

Kalanick’s Tarnished Image

Kalanick, as an individual, faced even more scrutiny in late February after he was caught on video in a profanity-laden argument with an Uber driver over the company’s falling fares, which the driver said made him “bankrupt.” After the video surfaced online, Kalanick publicly apologized.

“To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement,” Kalanick wrote in a company-wide email. “I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time I’ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.”

Several years ago, Kalanick also came under fire for referring to his company as “Boob-er” in an highly-scrutinized GQ interview, saying that his desirability among women has increased since starting Uber.

Kalanick Resigns

A week before officially resigning, Kalanick announced an indefinite leave of absence from Uber leadership. This was in response to Holder’s recommendation that the company re-evaluate some of Kalanick’s responsibilities or distribute them among other members of leadership. In a memo to employees, Kalanick also said the leave of absence would give him time to grieve for his mother, who was killed in a boating accident weeks earlier.

Breaking: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick memo to employees on his leave of absence. Full text. @NPR pic.twitter.com/tCE4bZ2C0u

— Aarti Shahani (@aarti411) June 13, 2017

The temporary departure did not satisfy Uber’s investors, however. On June 20, two venture capitalists presented Kalanick with a list of demands, including his resignation. The letter was from five of Uber’s major investors, including Benchmark and the mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments. By the end of the day, his departure was made public.

Kalanick’s resignation isn’t the first indication of instability among the company’s top brass. Including the position of CEO, three of Uber’s eight leadership positions are currently vacant. Several other high-level positions and other leaders are also currently under scrutiny, and four out of seven board members, including the board’s only two women, are relatively new to the company.

What’s Next for Uber?

In spite of the recent controversies, Uber is continuing to expand and reshape its image. Uber added an in-app tipping function in June, much to the delight of drivers and customers, and the company’s self-driving projects are continuing to improve, even in the wake of the Waymo lawsuit. The company also streamlined its app to allow users to hail rides for others more easily, letting users call an Uber for a drunk friend or aging relative.

Unfortunately, the scandals haven’t stopped altogether. Less than 10 days after Kalanick’s resignation, civil rights activists filed suit against Uber in federal court for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act and the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act by not accommodating passengers with non-collapsible wheelchairs.

Conclusion

Even with the departure of Kalanick, the rest of this year could be make or break for Uber. Kalanick still retains a seat on Uber’s board, as well as voting rights in company decisions. Some think he could be leaving the door open to return to the helm in the future. Murmurs of Uber going public are also ongoing. Uber’s market share decrease and 2016 earnings loss could still hold up an IPO, but economists and experts think Kalanick’s resignation is a good sign for the company’s public trading potential. All eyes will remain on Uber to see if the ride-sharing giant can continue to grow, while transforming its leadership and company culture.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber in Turmoil: How Several Scandals Led to the Departure of its CEO appeared first on Law Street.

After President Donald Trump’s refugee and travel ban caused chaos and protests at airports on Saturday, New York taxis refused to pick up passengers from JFK airport. But taxi competitor Uber took advantage of the situation, by continuing to offer rides and restricting surge prices–and is now being criticized as inappropriate and opportunistic. #DeleteUber has trended as a result.

The NY Taxi Workers Alliance announced yesterday evening that it was going to cease picking passengers up at the airport:

New York Taxi Workers Stand Up. Feeling proud. #Strike #NoBanNoWall #NoMuslimBan pic.twitter.com/4SDwpiBG81

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) January 29, 2017

About 30 minutes after the strike was announced, Uber tweeted out that it would still be operating and wouldn’t implement surge prices–a normal phenomenon when there’s a lot of demand.

Surge pricing has been turned off at #JFK Airport. This may result in longer wait times. Please be patient.

— Uber NYC (@Uber_NYC) January 29, 2017

Uber later declared that it didn’t intend to make a political statement. It read: “We’re sorry for any confusion about our earlier tweet—it was not meant to break up any strike. We wanted people to know they could use Uber to get to and from JFK at normal prices, especially tonight.” But, many people were still upset by Uber’s move, and the hashtag #DeleteUber shows why:

Last night I logged in to #deleteuber. Felt reluctance for a split second. then remembered the Montgomery Bus Boycott & felt ashamed. pic.twitter.com/D9WEtmkz6W

— wikipedia brown (@eveewing) January 29, 2017

1. Open the Uber app.
2. Tap ☰ > Tap Help> Account and Payment> Account Settings and Ratings> Delete my Uber Account.#deleteUber #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/RGtla4R5Tf

— Crescent (@TheLostAmelia) January 29, 2017

Dear @Uber_DC and @Uber, by prioritizing profits over human (and American) values you’ve lost a VIP super user. #DeleteUber #NoBanNoWall pic.twitter.com/39arOnf8D7

— RobertMichaelMurray (@rmmageddon) January 29, 2017

Uber’s major competitor, Lyft, also drove to and from JFK last night. But this morning, Lyft released a statement, pledging its support to the protesters, and a promise to donate $1 million to the ACLU over the next four years. The cofounders, John Zimmer and Logan Green, wrote in a blog post:

This weekend, Trump closed the country’s borders to refugees, immigrants, and even documented residents from around the world based on their country of origin. Banning people of a particular faith or creed, race or identity, sexuality or ethnicity, from entering the U.S. is antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.

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 #DeleteUber Trends After Company Continues Operating at JFK Airport appeared first on Law Street.

Driverless cars are all the rage in the auto industry lately, as efforts have been underway for years to move away from the outmoded, human-driven gas guzzlers of the 1990s and early 2000s. The rosy image of the future of cars took a hit recently, however, when a man was killed while riding in his Tesla while on autopilot mode. This fatality immediately raised concerns over safety and the need for regulation that had been relatively quiet in the quest to go driverless. Read on to find out more about self-driving cars, how they are being regulated, and how close we are to a society where your car does the driving for you.

The History Behind Driverless Cars

While history has seen many driverless vehicles, from boats to rockets, driverless cars are typically something that is only seen in science fiction writing. Although the idea began drawing increasing interest around World War II, the concept was still in its infancy. Some actually believed the future wasn’t in driverless cars, but in safe highways that could guide cars like trains on a track. The movement for driverless cars really began to gain momentum with artificial intelligence enthusiasts during the 1960s who dreamed of developing driverless cars by the new millennium. Several prototypes were developed starting in the late 1970s, but the main challenge of developing a vehicle that could not only drive but react to conditions in real time remained elusive.

The industry got a boost when the U.S. military became involved in 2004, initiating a competition to develop driverless cars for use on the battlefield. Since then, driverless vehicles have popped up all over, including on farms, mines, and warehouses. The late 2000s and early 2010s also saw self-driving cars become a more plausible option for the average commuter, particularly when Google began its foray into the industry. Along with Google the other big name in the driverless car industry is currently Tesla Motors, while other many car companies have autonomous car projects of their own. The accompanying video looks at the history of driverless cars and their potential future:

Impact of Driverless Cars

Many carmakers are already fretting about the future of their industry. With the rise of affordable car-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, getting around without owning a car has become much easier for people who live in cities. This has led major car companies to invest in these services. Car companies are also investing in driverless cars, which could present another possible major disruption to the status quo of their industry.

Forecasts suggest that if and when driverless cars become widespread, likely sometime in the next couple decades, families will actually own fewer vehicles. This is due to the fact that a car that can operate by itself will be able to fulfill more functions with greater efficiency than traditional cars. Many may even forego ownership and use car sharing services instead.

It’s also important to consider driverless cars’ impact on the fusion of two industries. Namely, many of the largest and most well-known names in the auto and tech industry are teaming up to create the cars of tomorrow. The idea behind these collaborations is each industry is lending what it does best. In the case of the auto industry that is large scale production of vehicles that are safety and emissions compliant. For tech companies, that is developing the software, not only to allow for driverless cars but also for functions associated with computers or smartphones today.

Safety Concerns

The push toward driverless cars has continued even as the potential for danger remains high. While the accident in May that resulted in the death of the driver was the first fatality related to a self-driving car, it was certainly not the first accident. In fact, driverless cars are between two and five times as likely to get into accidents as cars with drivers, although that range depends on whether unreported accidents in regular cars are included. These numbers are slightly skewed by the small number of driverless cars compared to the large number of traditional cars. Nonetheless, while driverless cars are more likely to be in accidents, until the recent fatality, all the accidents that did occur only resulted in minor injuries because the driverless vehicles were always going slow at the time of the accident.

The following video details the first fatality in a driverless car:

Although the accident rate for driverless cars is higher, nearly all accidents between driverless cars and human drivers are the human’s fault. In fact, it was not until this year when the actions of a driverless car led to a traffic accident. This begs the question, why are driverless cars getting in more accidents when they are less likely to cause them in the first place? Ironically, the problem is that driverless cars are programmed first and foremost to always obey the laws of the road. However, in a busy intersection or highway, humans often disregard the rules and drive as necessary. The conservative approach that is taken by driverless cars actually increases their accident rate.

The inability to overcome the human element has caused the two leading companies in the driverless car industry, Google and Tesla, to pursue different approaches to the same goal. Based on observations made by Google engineers during an initial test phase–where drivers quickly trusted self-driving cars and stopped paying attention–Google decided to take a slower approach with the goal of creating a car that is 100 percent driverless. Conversely, Tesla embraces a notably different method. Tesla’s cars actually have many autonomous features already; however, the company instructs its drivers to keep their hands on the wheel while riding. Telsa argues that this approach will allow the company to collect enough data in order to improve its technology in a shorter timespan.

Perhaps the most significant safety issue, though, could affect cars with drivers and driverless models alike. This issue is the threat of hacking. With the amount of technology in modern cars and the many ways that they can connect to the internet, hackers are now able to take over a person’s vehicle.

The video below looks at the threat of car hacking:

Debate and Regulation

The high rate of accidents and the recent fatality has naturally intensified the debate over whether driverless cars are safe enough to traverse American roads. While autonomous features are commonly found in cars already, fully driverless cars are a work in progress. Getting driverless cars to the point where they are significantly safer than normal cars, however, could take hundreds of years of test driving. It becomes a question of how safe is safe enough and whether a crash in a driverless car is worse than a crash in a normal car.

While regulators are trying to step in and set up a framework for driverless cars, they too are uncertain about how to best regulate the industry. California, home to Google and most major tech companies, is currently the epicenter of the driverless car industry. In California, it is still illegal for driverless cars to operate on public roads without a licensed driver able to take the wheel at any moment. The main problem with these regulations, at least for the carmakers, is the requirement for cars have pedals and a steering wheel–features that driverless car makers like Google want to get rid of. California was actually the second state to authorize self-driving cars for testing and public use. The first state was Nevada, which has much looser regulations. Michigan has also authorized the use of driverless cars.

However, to avoid the varying state standards that have already popped up, many carmakers are anxious for national rules. Such rules may come sooner rather than later, as the Department of Transportation aimed to have a nationwide standard for regulations outlined within six months of its January announcement. In July, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced some progress on rulemaking and outlined steps going forward. However, many questions about regulation remain unanswered.

Conclusion

Driverless cars are a relatively new and exciting technology. Like any new advancement before them, there is an inherent risk involved, especially at the early stages. However, that risk has to be controlled in order to ensure driver safety.

While driverless cars excite the imagination, they still have a long way to go before they are adequately safe and regulated. This will not be an easy transition as it means people will have to embrace giving up control at 70 plus miles per hour. This also comes at a time when everything, including cars, is vulnerable to online attacks. Nevertheless, driverless vehicles appear to be an important next step in transportation technology. Even if they suffer several growing pains along the way, a car where everyone rides shotgun is likely the car of the future.

Resources

New York Times: Self-Driving Tesla Was Involved in Fatal Crash, U.S. Says

Computer History Museum: Where to? A History of Autonomous Vehicles

Los Angeles Times: Tesla and Google are Both Driving Toward Autonomous Vehicles. Which is Taking the Better Route?

The Economist: The driverless, Car-Sharing Road Ahead

USA Today: Study: Self-driving cars have higher accident rate

Wired: Google’s Self-Driving Car Caused Its First Crash

Bloomberg Technology: Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw

Los Angeles Times: Is the World Ready for Driverless Cars? Are Driverless Cars ready for the World?

Governing: When Regulating Self-Driving Cars, Who’s at the Wheel?

Wired: The FBI Warns That Car Hacking Is a Real Risk

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Close are we to Driverless Cars? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump’s Twitter War Escalates

Today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC discussed some very important news: Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren’s Twitter war. Besides the fact that it’s getting very much out of hand, the hosts raised some real concerns that it reflects the state of American politics in the age of social media. Likening the debacle to cyberbullying, the hosts wondered what kind of awful example these “leaders of the free world” were setting for young people. They also wondered when the senator and GOP frontrunner were going to use their Twitter savvy to impact real change on actual issues instead of personal attacks. While many see Trump’s weekend jabs at Warren and the Clintons as weaknesses, many others see it as turbo fuel for getting him to the White House. Check out the full early morning rant below:

Uber & Lyft Vow to Leave Austin, Texas after Voters affirm regulations

Ride hailing companies Uber and Lyft lost their grip Saturday after Austin voters decided it would be best for the companies to continue to be regulated by the city’s ordinances instead of looser laws. This requires Uber and Lyft drivers to undergo more intense background checks, among other protocols. The two companies have seen worldwide success and popularity, but it did them no good in Austin, a presumably  lucrative market. Although they spent over $8 million on ads, voters didn’t go their way. To be very honest, after that crazy  driver in Kalamazoo, Michigan that killed six people, injured others, and claimed to be possessed by the app, many feel as though no amount of regulation will be quite enough.

Ivy League economist ethnically profiled and interrogated for doing math on American Airlines flight

You may be wondering: How does one get interrogated for doing math on an American Airlines flight? Let alone a differential equation. Because when someone is doing that kind of math in their casual spare time it must be important and you shouldn’t question them. You should just stand back in awe, because most Americans actually suck at math.

But this puzzling scenario happened to Guido Menzio, a decorated Ivy league economist. Unfortunately for Menzio, a passenger next to him thought he was writing in Arabic and was, presumably, a terrorist. *Face palm* Instances of this kind are on the rise, and are often unfounded, as seen with the “Clock Kid” 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, who was arrested for bringing a hand-made clock to school.

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore March for “Gun Sense”

Melissa Joan Hart and Julianne Moore are two Hollywood stars who were greatly affected by the news of the Sandy Hook shooting, a tragic event that left many young children dead and dozens parents mourning. This past weekend, the actresses joined hundreds of parents in support of Moms Demand Action, a group advocating gun control. Gun control has been a contentious topic of dispute for many years. But while many attribute pro-gun attitudes to conservatives and anti-gun to liberals, Moore has said she believes it should not be a partisan issue but rather a “safety” issue.

‘They stole my big brother’: violence turns child into champion for ‘gun sense’ https://t.co/Ji36LIfiMJ pic.twitter.com/V8DFjZwqu0

— Moms Demand Action (@MomsDemand) May 9, 2016

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman can be extradited to U.S. to face charges

Just in case there wasn’t enough El Chapo drama in your life, a Mexican judge ruled that El Chapo can be extradited to the U.S. to face charges for drug trafficking in accordance to a U.S.-Mexican extradition treaty. Although the legal side has been justified, the ministry has 20 days to authorize the extradition.

In the meantime, El Chapo has been moved to a less secure prison in Juarez, one of his cartel’s strongholds. An anonymous official admitted that there is concern that, while Guzman is being surveilled day and night in a secure wing of the prison, the Juarez prison is more lax than the one Guzman previously resided in. This move raised eyebrows for the DEA, and officials questioned the logic of moving him to a less secure prison where he potentially had the tools and people to help him escape. Prison break again, anyone?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

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 Uber and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

Uber recently reached a settlement with its drivers in California and Massachusetts in two lawsuits that could have derailed the company’s entire business model. While both sides gave important concessions in the settlement, Uber maintains the ability to classify its drivers as independent contractors in both states, a win that will prevent the company’s costs from skyrocketing.

If approved by a district court judge, the settlement will resolve two class action lawsuits against Uber that originated in California and Massachusetts. Drivers will remain independent contractors and Uber has agreed to pay the plaintiffs $84 million with an additional $16 million contingent upon the company going public and increasing significantly in value.

If Uber drivers were granted employee status, Uber would have been required to pay minimum wage, reimburse expenses, provide health benefits, and pay the employer portion of social security. A report from the National Employment Law Project estimates that classifying workers as contractors can save companies as much as 30 percent on payroll and related taxes and can significantly reduce the amount they are paid.

The settlement will also require Uber to change its driver deactivation policies. The issued a deactivation policy explaining what factors can lead to deactivation and will provide additional information to drivers in Massachusetts and California about their rating and how it compares to other drivers. With the settlement, Uber agreed to create and help fund a drivers association that will meet quarterly and function somewhat like a union. Drivers will also be allowed to put up signs asking riders for tips.

However, the court’s approval of the settlement is not guaranteed. In fact, a similar settlement involving the company’s competitor, Lyft, was recently rejected by a judge. That settlement was rejected because the proposed amount, $12.25 million, was based on an outdated expense reimbursement estimate. The judge argued that the settlement would need to increase significantly to meet estimates from more recent data. Underlying that case are similar questions: should drivers be considered employees and are they entitled to reimbursements?

Overall, the recent settlement appears to be a large victory for Uber. The company was valued at $62.5 billion in December, making the $100 million settlement relatively manageable in the context of the company’s size. Uber will also continue to keep its costs remarkably low as it continues to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Drivers will get some important concessions from the company and Uber is openly acknowledging that it needs to evolve in the way it manages its drivers as the company grows.

In a blog post after the settlement was reached, Uber CEO and Co-Founder Travis Kalanick wrote,

Six years ago when Uber first started in San Francisco, it was easy to communicate with the handful of drivers using the app. Austin Geidt, who ran marketing, called each one regularly to get their feedback and make sure things were working well. It was clear from those early conversations that drivers really valued the freedom Uber offered.

Kalanick also notes that the company now has over 450,000 drivers using the app each month. Given the dramatic increase in the company’s size, it is seeking to improve the way it receives and responds to feedback from drivers while clarifying its deactivation policies.

Despite the settlement, many questions remain about worker classification for so-called “gig economy” jobs. The settlement resolves a dispute between drivers in the two states, but it doesn’t answer the question altogether. Moreover, a settlement will not leave a precedent in the way a decision from a federal judge would. Regulators also retain the ability to change classification standards, which would have a dramatic impact on these businesses.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Agrees to $100 Million Settlement With Drivers appeared first on Law Street.

Uber (and its competitors) have certainly disrupted and innovated the transportation industry. But the reviews haven’t all been stellar–there have been multiple instances in which drivers have been accused of sexual assault. So, a new ride sharing company, Chariot for Women, is launching, with both women drivers and for women passengers. However, legal experts are concerned that the company may face legal challenges early on, on the grounds of discrimination.

The company was started by a former Uber driver named Michael Pelletz, who realized that drivers could sometimes be in vulnerable positions if a passenger gets aggressive. That, combined with security concerns from Uber and Lyft passengers, inspired the company. The website states:

The plan was perfect: As a women-owned company, Chariot for Women would use the safest practices to give the most secure and fun rideshare experience in the industry, driven by women, for women. Drivers are thoroughly background checked before they can ever accept one passenger request.

In addition to picking up women, the service will also pick up children under the age of 13, as well as transwomen. Chariot is also planning on using a feature that requires both the driver and passenger to confirm their identities with a code word when beginning a ride.

All of these ideas sound like ostensibly good things. However, the company may run into issues, and gender discrimination lawsuits could cost the fledgling startup quite a bit. Massachusetts employment law specialist Joseph Sulman stated:

To limit employees to one gender, you have to have what the law calls a bona fide occupational qualification. And that’s a really strict standard. The law’s really tough on that. For gender, it’s not enough to say, ‘we really just want to have a female here because our customers prefer that to feel safer.

However, Chariot’s founders seem ready to take on the legal challenge head on. Pelletz stated:

We want to show there’s inequality in safety in our industry. We hope to go to the US Supreme Court to say that if there’s safety involved, there’s nothing wrong with providing a service for women.

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 Chariot: A New Women-Only Ridesharing Company Could Have Legal Issues appeared first on Law Street.

Companies such as Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, and others are smashing the traditional models of business, making it easy for anyone with a smartphone or Internet access to instantly connect with other people to acquire and share goods and services. This trend has contributed to the creation of the “sharing economy” which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s society.

The sharing economy is formally defined as “an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by someone else.” On one hand, this new economy seems to offer flexibility and greater options to consumers, while allowing nearly anyone to participate and benefit; on the other, these companies are often subject to less regulation and scrutiny than traditional businesses.

Uber and Lyft’s taxi-like services jump-started a trend that has spread to start-ups in nearly every industry imaginable including clothing, alcohol, and even, as The Daily Show noted, chickens.

This new trend has the potential to be a major disruptor to the economy, as it has already impacted the way that business is done. The ability to rent nearly anything has made ownership much less desirable, especially for the millennial generation, who make up the majority of participants in this economy. When people have the ability to easily rent just about anything, there is much less need for people to make actual purchases. Additionally, many of the largest-growing companies today don’t directly provide the good or service they sell to their consumer base: Uber does not own the cars it drives, Airbnb does not own the properties it rents, and Grubhub does not make the food it delivers. They simply act as intermediaries to connect goods or services with consumers.

Despite its newfound dominance in the modern world of commerce, the sharing economy is still young and as it continues to expand at such a rapid pace, it may face some growing pains. Many companies are coming under fire for allegedly not obeying the laws set in place for traditional businesses to protect consumers and laborers. Additionally, the prevalent usage of contractors and temporary workers in their business models has led to many criticisms claiming that they lack respect for workers’ rights.

Read on for a look at the biggest issues facing the companies of today’s sharing economy.

Consumer Safety

A major issue facing these startups is whether consumers can trust these companies to provide the same level of safety as traditional businesses. Due to their peer-to-peer model, they are often not held to the same legal and regulatory standards put in place to protect consumers, leading to a litany of criticisms.

Airbnb

Airbnb, a company that allows people to go online and list or rent properties for short-term rental, is an alternative to traditional hotels for people traveling for leisure or business. The company is a major player in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually own any hotel properties of its own. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the company averages nearly 22 percent more guests per night than Hilton Worldwide.

However, critics are concerned about the safety procedures put in place by Airbnb. The service allows virtually anyone to put up a listing and become a host, and they do not routinely perform background checks on users. The company explains, however, that it has features in place to ensure safety, such as user reviews and a Verified ID process (in which identification is confirmed through a government-issued ID or social media profile). Still, the question remains, is that enough to ensure that both hosts and guests will have a safe experience?

This issue was put in a spotlight last month in a piece published by Matter, in which the author Zak Stone gave an account of his father’s death in a freak accident involving a rope swing in a Texas Airbnb rental. Stone’s piece is an extensive look at the legal and ethical controversies surrounding Airbnb, and includes stories such as one of a woman who died from carbon monoxide in a Taiwanese property. These stories highlight a large concern with the Airbnb business model, which is that the company cannot necessarily hold its listed properties to the same standard as a major hotel chain can with its properties. While hotels must operate under legal and regulatory standards, there are less restrictions on which properties can be posted. Whether user ratings are enough to ensure quality and safety for guests is an issue that can be debated.

Additionally, hosts cannot always be assured by the fact that their guests are trustworthy and will take care of their property. To address this, the company does offer Host Protection Insurance that protects against liability claims liability claims up to $1 million. However, anyone who chooses to become an Airbnb host would presumably be aware that they are agreeing to undertake a certain level of risk by letting a stranger stay in their property.

Uber and Lyft 

The safety concerns that plague Airbnb can also extend to ride-sharing services such as Uber or Lyft. In order to become a driver with one of these services, drivers must pass a background check, in addition to holding a driver’s license and meeting the minimum age of 21. Cars are not maintained by the companies, but must possess a certain level of insurance in order to operate. Despite this, there is a long list of incidents such as assaults, attempted kidnappings, and driver DUIs, among others. There are also allegations that the background checks are not extensive enough, and as such, they are more likely than taxi services to have such incidents take place.

However, taxi drivers have also been accused of similar offenses, so it seems that this issue is not unique to ride-sharing companies. A Cato Institute study found that ride-sharing companies were just as safe as traditional taxis, and also claimed that background checks for such companies often had stricter requirements than those for cabs in the U.S.’s biggest cities. Additionally, users of Uber and Lyft have the personal information of the driver on their phone, making it easier to report incidents (and the same is true if a driver is attacked by a passenger).

Labor Issues

Companies involved in the sharing economy have been held responsible for the emergence of the “gig economy,” which relies on contractors to make up the majority of its workforce. Because of this, they are not offered benefits such as health insurance and vacation. In fact, both Uber and Lyft are facing lawsuits for the “misclassification of drivers” in order to save on labor costs. Because they classify workers as contractors, federal law does not let them form unions to advocate for fairer treatment. Additionally, as noted earlier, drivers are required to use their own car, smartphone, and insurance in order to operate. This may affect the ability of lower-income workers to be able to participate in the first place.

Some may argue that Uber workers are not typically full-time drivers; they often hold other jobs and drive to make some extra money on the side. As such, do these companies need to be concerned about providing them with benefits? It is true that the vast majority of drivers fall in the 18-to-24 age group, and over half of drivers are part-timers. However, Uber and Lyft have been responsible for affecting the businesses of traditional taxi drivers who often do make their living off of their profession. The majority of New York taxi drivers are immigrants, with the median falling in the 50-54 age range. The disruption of car-sharing services on traditional taxi services has been immense, causing taxi drivers all over the world to protest Uber.

Another problem sharing economy startups bring to the forefront is whether or not their models will hinder future job growth. If apps and websites can eventually take over jobs done by people, what effects will this have on the future of the job market?

In a segment on his show, Bill Maher lamented that this sharing economy is a reflection of societal greed, and will lead to greater income inequality because it will decrease the number of jobs available. These concerns, however, are more so related to technological progress rather than directly the result of the sharing economy, so it seems unreasonable to blame the sharing economy. Hillary Clinton also cited the gig economy as dampening wage growth in the U.S., and “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the sharing economy has had a tremendous impact on the way that business is done, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Many are still skeptical of this system because it is based on trust, and it is difficult to hold this trust without being ensured that your interests are protected by the law. The traditional legal system hasn’t caught up to these non-traditional ways of doing business, but as this business model becomes more and more prevalent, companies will need to continue to put regulations and protections in place for consumers and laborers.

Resources

Primary 

PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Consumer Intelligence Series-“The Sharing Economy”

Additional

Medium: Living and Dying on Airbnb

U.S. News and World Report: Who’s a Sharing Economy Worker?

The Seattle Times: The ‘Shared Economy’ is Further Hurting Workers’ Rights

The Guardian: Uber and the Lawlessness of ‘Sharing Economy’ Corporates

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 Uber, Airbnb: Is the “Sharing Economy” Dangerous? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an old saying–the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Two of Uber’s biggest rivals–Lyft and the Chinese ride-sharing company Didi Kuaidi have apparently taken that adage to heart, as they just announced they’re teaming up, seemingly in the hopes to take down the rideshare king–Uber.

The partnership between Lyft and Didi Kuaidi essentially means that users who have Lyft but not Didi Kuaidi downloaded can use their Lyft app to call a Didi Kuaidi car in a area where Lyft isn’t operating, and vice versa. By doing so, both services massively expanded their markets, and made it easier on their riders by combining the apps. This will mark Lyft’s first entry in the Chinese market, which is currently dominated by Didi Kuaidi. Didi Kuaidi claims to have control of roughly 80 percent of the private ridesharing market, and provides about three million rides each day. Moreover, this partnership isn’t the only interaction that Lyft and Didi Kuaidi have had–the Chinese company has invested heavily in Lyft. It contributed $100 million to Lyft’s most recent round of funding.

Why would Lyft and Didi Kuaidi want to get involved in each other’s markets? There’s one very simple explanation–they want to take Uber down. Uber already dominates Lyft in the U.S. While Didi Kuaidi is the prominent provider in China, the company is presumably nervous about Uber’s announcement that it plans to aggressively expand in China. During a round of fundraising this summer, Uber sent out a letter to investors that explained the opportunities available in the Chinese market. The letter stated:

Guangzhou, Hangzhou and Chengdu have all surpassed New York as our three largest cities on a trips basis. Impressively, Hangzhou and Chengdu have accomplished this feat in just 9 months, compared to New York which is 4 years old.

Hangzhou is now over 400x the size that New York was at its same age. 200,000 Hangzhou residents are becoming new UberChina riders every week!

While some critics think the numbers that Uber is claiming to have in China may be overblown, it’s clear that the company is making a big push. Given Didi Kuaidi’s move to partner with Lyft, it also doesn’t want to take the threat from Uber lying down.

Didi Kuaidi may be looking for other partners as well–rumors are floating that similar partnerships are in the works with ridesharing companies in India and Singapore. As Uber tries to break further into the international market, it may face an increasingly connected world of rivals.

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 Rideshare Rivalry: Two of Uber’s Biggest Rivals Team Up appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no modern advancement in transportation has been so divisive as Uber. Some cities, states, and countries have welcomed the popular ride-sharing app with open arms, while others have demonized the company and tried to block its implementation. However, Uber may now have a new bargaining chip when it comes to convincing its critics that it’s actually a good thing. A study conducted in California recently found that the use of Uber helped to reduce drunk driving fatalities in the state.

Uber has actually been claiming that it can reduce drunk driving deaths for a while. For example, earlier this year, it sent out an email stating:

Since we launched uberX in California, drunk-driving crashes decreased by 60 per month for drivers under 30. That’s 1,800 crashes likely prevented over the past 2 ½ years.

The study on which it based that claim was co-authored with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and showed that drunk driving incidences have fallen in the California cities where Uber operates. However, critics claimed that the study only showed correlation, not necessarily causation, and claimed that Uber didn’t have enough evidence to make the claim.

However, the new study, conducted independently by researchers led by Brad Greenwood from Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, might get more credence. Essentially the findings of the paper were that cheap ride-sharing apps (not just Uber, but also its competitors like Lyft) lowered drunk driving incidences. This study may be better received because it attempted to show a causation rather than just a correlation. The researchers were able to test the impact that Uber had when it entered various markets, and estimate its potential future effects.

The conclusion about its future effects was interesting, and bodes well for Uber. The report stated:

Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent – 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California. With more than 13k deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes at a cost of 37 billion dollars, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber X would create a public welfare net of over 1.3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives annually

Another interesting aspect of the study was that it discovered that only the cheap models of the apps seem to be successful at lowering the drunk driving rate. More expensive models like Uber Black don’t appear to make much of a difference.

Given some of the struggles that Uber–particularly the crowd sourced and cheaper UberX–has had getting into various markets, this promises to be a decent bargaining point. While Uber is obviously very far from being perfect, and still has some serious regulatory issues to work with, this could be a big plus in the argument to introduce Uber to new locales.

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 Can Uber Lower the Number of Drunk Driving Deaths? appeared first on Law Street.

Crowd-sourced mobile taxi service Uber has developed a bit of a reputation for having a sexist “bro culture.” A new announcement this morning from the company reveals it’s trying to change that. Uber announced it will be partnering with UN Women “with the goal of accelerating economic opportunity for women.” As part of that commitment, it has pledged to create 1,000,000 jobs for women drivers by 2020. That sounds good, but is this sudden explosion of growth really proof that the company is becoming more female friendly?

A good example of how Uber has gotten a sexist rep is the feud between the company and Sarah Lacy, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of tech website PandoDaily. In October, Uber’s French office unveiled a sexist promotion with an app called “Avions de Chasse” that pairs Uber riders with “hot chick” drivers. Lacy responded with an oped piece on her site criticizing the company’s “Asshole culture,” writing that she deleted the app. She stated she was shocked that this company valued at $18 million “celebrated treating women who may choose to drive cars to make extra money like hookers.”

That’s when Uber execs apparently retaliated in maybe the worst way possible. They hired spies. Yup, spies. Spies who allegedly attempted to dig up information on Lacy to discredit her. While nothing ever real came of it, there was a lot of public outcry against Uber.

USA Today reported that Emil Michael, senior vice president of the business, allegedly said at a dinner party that the company spends $1 million to conduct “oppo research” on journalists. That means digging for any information Uber can manipulate in order to discredit its journalist critics. After public backlash the company made its apologies on Twitter and dropped the promotion.

The controversy with Lacy wasn’t the only anti-female press for Uber. Uber founder Travis Kalanick was quoted referring to his company as “Boob-er” because of all the ladies he pulls due to its success. With comments like that it’s no wonder the company’s headquarters have been deemed a boyish clubhouse.

It only got worse for Uber in December when it was banned from New Delhi, India after a male Uber driver was accused of sexually assaulting a female passenger. Unfortunately, that’s not the only case of alleged Uber sexual assault. In Boston, an Uber driver was charged with sexual assault after inappropriately touching a female passenger while dropping her off in the North End neighborhood. With that in mind, hiring more female drivers could make female passengers feel safer while using the service. In NYC, the app SheRides has already created a business model based on the concept, with an all female fleet that it claims is tailored to the needs of women.

Currently women make up only about 14 percent of Uber’s 160,000 drivers in the U.S., according to the The Huffington Post. This new female hiring initiative would increase Uber’s driving force by more than seven times its current total. Its clear that Uber realizes that referring to itself as “Boob-er” and hiring spies to stalk female journalists wasn’t the best idea. This hiring initiative, however, is a good first step of many that Uber will need to take in order to rid itself of its negative “bro culture” rep.

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 Uber’s New Hiring Initiative: Trying to Win Back the Women appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see it.

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 ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Uber and Lyft are the two big names in the modern transportation industry. Both services, heavily technologically based, provide dependable transportation and serve as a foil to a traditional taxi. So, naturally, there’s plenty of room for feuding there. Case in point: Lyft is suing former COO Travis VanderZanden, who is now with Uber. Lyft is arguing that VanderZanden breached the confidentiality agreement he signed with Lyft, as well as failed his fiduciary duties.

VanderZanden left Lyft in August after purportedly feuding with company founders John Zimmer and Logan Green. Soon after, he got a job with Uber, Lyft’s most obvious rival.

Lyft is accusing VanderZanden of a few different types of inappropriate conduct after he left the company. It is arguing that he attempted to solicit Lyft employees to leave with him, and it claims that he took a bunch of confidential documents with him when he left. There are traces of certain proprietary documents being copied to VanderZanden’s personal Dropbox–an online account used for large document storage. Lyft claims the confidential documents included:

Historic and future financial information, strategic planning materials like marketing plans and product plans, customer lists and data, international growth documents, and private personnel information.

Even if VanderZanden in no way conveyed this sort of information to his new employers, Lyft argues that he’s still breaking the confidentiality agreement that he signed when he began working with them. The possession of the documents in a personal account alone breaches the document he signed. Uber claims that it doesn’t have any of Lyft’s proprietary information, but who’s to know if that’s true.

The ongoing feud between the two companies is certainly interesting though, as they have very similar roots. Lyft was founded in San Francisco in 2012; Uber was founded in San Francisco just three years before. Having used both services in Washington, D.C. multiple times, there are very few noticeable differences in terms of user experience, except for maybe the fact that Lyft drivers adorn their cars with bright pink mustaches, whereas Uber drivers go for significantly more subtle window stickers.

Despite the obvious similarities, Uber is pretty much trouncing Lyft in the market. Fortune discovered that in the last year, riders spent $26.4 million on Uber rides, in comparison to only $2.2 million reported by Lyft. Part of that could very well be because Lyft is a younger company, and while they’re growing quickly they’re certainly still behind Uber in the grand scheme of things. Uber is a global company, whereas Lyft is still working on expanding.

Given that the two companies really are fighting for the same market–smartphone wielding people who don’t want to have to bother with hailing a cab or fumbling with cash to pay for said cab–Lyft and Uber have every reason to compete. Like Apple and Samsung, on a much smaller scale, I think we can expect to see lawsuits, court cases, and allegations thrown around between the two companies for a while to come.

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 Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

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 AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules 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.

Recently, there have been a lot cases that deal with liability. Whether, it’s Uber X drivers, Lyft, or even MH370, there is a common trend following the advancement of technological convenience, that the lines of liability become blurred. The next foreseen liability issue will be automated cars. The invention of the automated car provides convenience and could potentially increase safety on the roads. Google, large automakers, and governments around the world are investing large amounts of money to jump start vehicle automation technology. This all sounds great until we consider one minor detail: whose liable if no one is driving?

Driver Automation: What’s the issue?

It becomes confusing to fairly separate blame between a person driver and an automated vehicle. Looking at the possibility of a driverless vehicle being to blame, there are multiple aspects to consider, such as how the vehicle was made or tested. Many experts believe that it will be liabilities such as these that will slow down or even halt the shift of driverless cars from the research grounds to the roadways.

Do we just assume that this invention of driverless cars is out of reach because the court system will not be able to handle the liabilities that come with it? Rather than attempting to imagine every possible dangerous situation that may occur involving driverless cars, the courts can use a legal frameworks that are already in place. That is the rapidly growing area of law, product liability.

Following rapid technological change that has occurred in the last couple of years, products liability has become a growing area of law. It centers itself around the responsibilities of selling and creating  newer products. Plaintiffs involved in product liability lawsuits will have multiple theories of liability to choose from in their attempt to recover damages, such as negligence, design defects and manufacturing defects. This already established product liability system can be applied to the recent invention of the automated vehicles.

Negligence

Manufacturers can be charged with negligence if they do not design their products to be safely used in ways that can be predicted. An example of this would be an automated vehicle that works correctly during the day but has issues at night. When this results in a crash or car damage, a plaintiff can argue that driving at night is a foreseeable activity for a driverless car. The fact that a manufacturer did not correctly account for this is negligence.

Design Defects

A design defect is another possible liability avenue for driverless cars, that the court will be able to legally handle. A design defect would be labeled as something such as when the software can not sufficiently brake on a downhill slope. This can cause a frontal collision with another car, allowing the plaintiff to file a design defect liability claim.

Manufacturing Defects

There are times when the design can be sufficient, but the manufacturer can still have a liability issue due to manufacturing defects. This occurs when a manufacturer accidentally ships an older version of software containing flaws that a newer version has improved upon. Any injuries caused by a mistake such as this one can lead to a lawsuit revolving around manufacturing defects.

Prior to jumping to conclusions and believing that liabilities will put an end to automated vehicles before they hit the highway, let us look at the facts. The court system will not find it impossible to deal with the liability issues of driverless cars, but can instead use the products liability legal structure. In reality, automated vehicles are not really in a league of their own, but held to the same expectation of offering products that function correctly and safety as other manufacturers.

[The Atlantic] [CNN] [The Washington Post]

—

Taylor Garre (TaylorLynn013)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Steve Jurveston, Mariordo via Wikicommons]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Driverless Cars Prove to be Too Much of a Liability? appeared first on Law Street.