Thursday, April 22, 2021
Uncategorized Lawsuit could mandate local control for Lyft, UberX, and...

Lawsuit could mandate local control for Lyft, UberX, and SideCar

-

Lyft uses pink mustaches to identify its cars.
Lyft uses pink mustaches to identify its cars.

By Tim Redmond

A taxi association has filed a pair of legal appeals that could directly undermine the state’s decision to allow companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar to pick up passengers in San Francisco.

The case has received very little press attention, but it could upend a key part of the “sharing economy” in the city and force companies that are trying to act as unregulated cabs to curtail their operations – at least for now — or subject themselves to local regulation.

In San Francisco, that could mean seeking taxi permits, adopting stricter driver-screening and training rules, accepting rate regulation, and allowing passengers to complain to the Taxi Commission about service problems.

Among other things, the two legal filings argue that the California Public Utilities Commission had no right to legalize the ride-share companies without a full review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

The claims also suggest that the state agency undermined the ability of local government to regulate the cab industry.

If either of the arguments convinces the courts, then the CPUC could be forced to suspend its approval of the ride-sharing services – meaning the Lyft, UberX, and SideCar would be operating illegally until local governments granted approval.

The role these new companies play in the local transportation system, and the legality of what they’re doing, has been an issue for years. And the cab companies have been talking about suing for some time now.

The basic problem: The taxi industry has been tightly regulated for hundreds of years in major cities. In London, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and most other urban centers, cabs are considered part of the transportation infrastructure.

Every cab has to have an operating permit. Every driver has to undergo a background check and training. Rates are set by the city. Taxi drivers are required to pick up fares anywhere in town and can’t discriminate against seniors, disabled people, or any ethnic group.

If you don’t like the way you’re treated by a cab driver, you can complain to the city – and that driver could lose his or her permit. No such luck with the new services — although if a Lyft driver doesn’t like YOU, and posts that on the app, you could be SOL on ever getting a ride again.

The old system has its flaws – drivers get no health insurance, there are too few cabs in some parts of town and at some times of day, and the San Francisco industry was way too slow to adopt modern technology (that is, a cell-phone app that could summon a cab and give you an honest estimate of when it will be there).

But when the new ride-share companies entered the market, they simply ignored all the existing rules. There were no insurance requirements, no licensing, no permits – people just started driving their personal cars around and picking up passengers.

Then, in the face of possible local restrictions, the companies asked the CPUC to weigh in — and the agency, which has not traditionally interfered with cab rules, issued a finding that the new services were not cabs and could continue on with few significant changes.

The companies that wrote the apps that made this possible insisted that they weren’t in the taxi business at all – they just made ride-sharing possible. But the drivers were operating their cars pretty much exactly like cabs.

The two cases were filed separately May 9, one with the Court of Appeal and the other with the state Supreme Court. That’s because the two courts are responsible for different issues – and the cases raise several.

The law firm of Freidman and Springwater is representing the Taxicab Paratransit Association of California.

Among the claims that are before the Appeals Court: The CPUC can’t legally grant permission to ride-sharing companies to pick up passengers in cities because the state Legislature has specifically given that authority to local government.

“The Commission arrogated to itself authority far in excess of that duly delegated to it by the Legislature,” the lawsuit argues, “creating wholesale violation of municipal taxi regulation throughout the state.”

The case before the Supreme Court raises another issue, one that hasn’t been much discussed in the local debate over the ride-shares. The Supreme Court hears all appeals from state agencies like the CPUC when there’s a CEQA issue – and the taxi association lawyers say that the agency should never have issued these rules without a full environmental study.

The commission “has caused thousands of vehicles to engage in commerce operations on city streets and roadways” without the benefit of the sort of clean-air rules that apply to local taxis, the filing states.

The suit notes that San Francisco has become a national model for creating a green taxi fleet – a high percentage of the regulated, permitted vehicles are either hybrids or run on natural gas.

There are no such rules for ride-sharing vehicles, which can be old gas guzzlers or new clean-air cars; Lyft, UberXand SideCar don’t care.

That’s the crux of a lot of the argument here: If cities can’t regulate this type of vehicle traffic and commerce, and the state regulations are really loose, there are all sorts of unforeseen problems.

Depending on the scope of the ruling, the CEQA suit could put implementation of the rules allowing ride-shares on hold; a full environmental impact report could take as long as a year or more. If the other claims are upheld – again, depending on the scope of the ruling – the entire regulatory system could be overturned, the rules allowing ride sharing companies to continue to operate could be revoked, and San Francisco could begin working on its own local regulations.

The Taxi Commission has been deeply concerned about the lack of local rules. At the very least, the commission’s director, Chris Hayashi, wants the drivers to apply for permits (which the city could, and most likely would, limit), pay a reasonable fee, and undergo background checks. She also wants to be sure UberX, Lyft, and SideCar are buying enough insurance to cover their drivers.

In other words, instead of these ride-sharing companies saying they are nothing but apps that allow individuals with no formal connection to the corporation to use their cars to make money, the city wants them to take responsibility for what they do.

That could have an impact on so much else in the “sharing economy” – companies like Airbnb argue that they aren’t hotel operators, just middlemen connecting two private parties, the way Ebay is just a site that facilitates private sales.

The difference is that taxis have always been treated as public utilities, and hotels have always been regulated and taxed; before Ebay, private parties could sell stuff in the classified ads. Ebay really is just a medium for exchange; the other industries are something different.

If you buy a car on Ebay and run someone over the next day, Ebay clearly isn’t at fault. But if Lyft signs you up as a driver and you run someone over while working for hire, is Lyft on the hook?

If it acts like a taxi and works like a taxi and has all the impacts on the city of a taxi, is it really a taxi?

That’s what the courts are going to have to wrangle with – and the outcome could go far beyond a ride-sharing app.

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.

5 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks for making things simple. Now, on to the next question, the first, who done it and why having been answered: What are you/we going to do about it? A few suggestions.

    In writing, en mass, make the problem known to all elected politicians. Request they go record forthwith about what they are going to do, to stop the invasion of their respective jurisdictions by presumptuous, greedy, arrogant unscrupulous, shady characters, and their side-kicks. Innovation can be theft.

    Second: Demand of politicians involved governing the various jurisdictions to demand that all operations of these so-called ride sharing operations be shut down forthwith, or at minimum, scaled back to allow to taxi drivers (who come first) a living wage in the greater City and County of San Francisco.

    Three: Include in this great number of politicians, the most powerful, and able governor ever of these United States of America, the inimitable, the honorable Jerry Brown. That many taxi drivers are being reduced to earing than less than minimum wage, thanks to unfair advantages, and specifically to the lack of restriction on the number of these cell phone application devices in use…,it’s time for some real action.

    It’s time to stop pussyfooting around with these usurper of OUR resources, and the proud legacy of labor power of San Francisco. All power to the people!!! Thank you.

    JC

    P.S. An assessment must be done to determine how transportation service by taxis (or their ilk) can be made available effectively throughout the City and County. For oh so many reasons, particularly safety, regulation is absolutely necessary.

    Until all confusion caused is sorted out, all should play by the rules already established for Taxis. Save for no one taking the lead to enforce the laws, what makes this interim compromise complicated? Play by the rules, or leave the game. That’s all.

  2. Thanks, for giving us some details on these cases. Now we know what some of the arguments are. A big a question that has not been answered or discussed much is when is “how does one differentiate between a rental and a share?” This applies to more than taxi and ride shares.
    How are SFMTA car and bike shares not rentals when there is an exchange of funds between two parties and the charge of use of the vehicle is based on how long it is used? How are they not competing against traditional car rental companies?

  3. Excellent article. Taxis are a fundamental component of public transportation. Different cities have varying taxi needs. So, they retain the right to control their own taxi environment.,

  4. just a few errors: TNC’s are not ride sharing, so let’s stop calling them that.
    and there is no Taxi Commission anymore. it’s all underMTA/taxi.

  5. Poorly written and incorrect on so many levels. Get your facts straight before you write an article regarding Transportation Network Companies which have been widely misunderstood.

Comments are closed.

More by this author

Money for ‘safe sleeping’ sites — or permanent supportive housing?

Legislation by Sup. Rafael Mandelman aims to get people off the streets -- but homeless advocates are not supporting it. That's The Agenda for April 18-25

Radical right group is trying to attack public-sector labor in SF

Anti-union mailers are going to workers home addresses -- but really, this group is looking pretty desperate.

Breed won’t promise to spend real-estate tax money on rent relief

The voters approved Prop. I last fall to support tenants and affordable housing, but the mayor says she will use the money for her own priorities.

Reese Erlich, foreign correspondent and radical reporter, is dead at 73

After a life of progressive politics, ground-breaking journalism, and social activism, a legendary writer loses battle with cancer.

There’s a lot more to the GG Park debate than cars v. bikes

This is part of a huge discussion the city needs to have about transportation -- and equity -- in a post-COVID world.

Most read

I finally paid off my student loans at 40. No one should go through this

Not even winning on 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' helped me outrun Navient and condescending bootstrapper-types

Reservoir Dogs: Coyotes find a home amid Sunset solar panels

A pair of animals settles in, offering lessons on our contemporary relationship to nature

Good Taste: Secrets to scoring crazy croissants, SF gets a Korean food court

Plus: Bitchin' Baklava, and Gay4U feeds trans POC for free

Mayor Schaaf needs to stop resisting the movement to defund the Oakland PD

A bloated police budget has not made the streets any safer; it's time for real alternatives.

You might also likeRELATED