Litigation

UBER Gets a Win in Philadelphia

The dismissal of a complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), brought by Philadelphia taxi drivers asserting attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2, was affirmed for failure to state a cause of action.

The city taxi drivers claimed that Uber, a social media-based vehicle-for-hire service, violated the antitrust laws because its entry into the Philadelphia taxicab market was illegal, predatory, and led to a sharp drop in the value of taxicab medallions as well as a loss of profits. They contended that this was evidence that Uber's operation in Philadelphia was anticompetitive and caused them to suffer an antitrust injury.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with the city tax drivers and held that inundating the city taxicab market with the for-hire vehicles, even if it served to eliminate competitors, was not anticompetitive but rather bolstered competition by offering customers lower prices, more available taxicabs, and a high-tech alternative to the customary method of hailing taxicabs and paying for rides.  The Third Circuit found that none of the allegations in the second amended complaint demonstrated a harmful effect on competition.

Lexis Advanced subscribers can access the full opinion at:  Phila. Taxi Ass'n v. Uber Techs., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7606 (3d Cir. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)
Lexis subscribers can access the full opinion at:  Phila. Taxi Ass'n v. Uber Techs., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7606, 2018-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,331

 

 Author:  Gabriela N. Nolen, Lexis-Nexis Case Law Editor

 

For all legal research needs, please visit the LexisNexis Case Law Summaries on Lexis Advance®  

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.