An Uber customer who launched an antitrust lawsuit against the rideshare giant in 2015 asked a Manhattan federal judge on Friday, May 22, to overturn the decision, according to a Reuters report.
Spencer Meyer told the federal judge that the arbitrator ruled in Uber’s favor because he was scared. Meyer’s lawsuit accused Uber of conspiring with drivers to coordinate “surge pricing” by charging customers based on the app’s algorithm. The suit asked for a nationwide ban on surge pricing.
Les Weinstein, the appointed arbitrator, ruled in Uber’s favor on February 22 and the case was dismissed. Friday’s filings reportedly indicate that Weinstein based his decision on “evident partiality,” the report stated. “I must say I act out of fear. My fear is if I ruled Uber illegal, I would need security. I wouldn’t be able to walk the streets at night. People would be after me,” the transcript excerpt stated. It was attached to the filing.
Weinstein also reportedly questioned if he could legally ban surge pricing across the country. Another lawsuit against Uber alleges that the company engaged in deceitful practices to drive its competitor Sidecar Technologies out of business in 2015. The lawsuit brought by SC Innovations, Sidecar’s successor, is moving forward in front of Judge Joseph Spero in San Francisco.
The lawsuit alleges that Sidecar, founded in 2012, was the first company to offer ride-sharing but was muscled out of the business by Uber’s reportedly aggressive tactics.
The allegations in the suit include that Uber started lowering fares for passengers and offering incentives to attract drivers. Then the company used “surge” and “dynamic” pricing, the lawsuit claims, and other tactics as a way to cut driver pay and raise prices for riders.
The lawsuit also accused Uber of covertly booking and canceling rides on competitors’ apps.
Full Content: The National
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
