Judge dismisses Philly cab firms' most serious claims against Uber
An unfair-competition claim and four racketeering allegations have been dismissed against the ride-sharing company Uber Technologies in a federal lawsuit filed by 45 Philadelphia taxicab companies and a taxi dispatch service.
An unfair-competition claim and four racketeering allegations have been dismissed against the ride-sharing company Uber Technologies in a federal lawsuit filed by 45 Philadelphia taxicab companies and a taxi dispatch service.
Only a false-advertising claim against Uber remains in the federal case, U.S. District Court Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro ruled this week.
The crux of the lawsuit filed in December 2014 by Checker Cab Philadelphia was that Uber had an unfair competitive advantage over traditional taxicabs because the San Francisco-based company avoided the "cost and burden" of complying with state laws and local regulations governing taxis.
Separately, the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Thursday affirmed a previous ruling by Quiñones Alejandro denying Checker Cab's request for an injunction to prevent Uber from operating in Philadelphia.
Taxi companies alleged that Uber violated state unfair-competition laws in the Lanham Act and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In a 27-page opinion, Quiñones Alejandro dismissed RICO claims that Uber operated as an unlawful enterprise. The plaintiffs did not prove a "pattern of racketeering activity," she wrote.
The judge also dismissed a related racketeering claim against Google, an investor in Uber.
Quiñones Alejandro allowed the taxi firms' false-advertising claim to proceed. It alleges that in October 2014 Uber misrepresented, in advertisements on its website and social media, that the taxis' insurance was about to expire or be canceled.
In October 2014, First Keystone Risk Retention Group, which provided insurance to many local taxicab companies, had filed for bankruptcy in South Carolina.
The plaintiffs asserted in their lawsuit that almost all policyholders had obtained replacement coverage, and there were never medallion taxicabs operating in Philadelphia without insurance.
The plaintiffs contended their fares were hurt because of alleged false statements by Uber about the insurance. The court said customers may have been induced by "alleged false representations" to use Uber rather than a taxicab.
"Although Uber would have wanted all claims to be dismissed, it is nonetheless thrilled that Checker's claims of unfair competition are dismissed," said Carolyn P. Short, Uber's lead lawyer in the case.
Michael S. Henry, lawyer for Checker and the other taxi companies, could not be immediately reached for comment.
215-854-2831
@LoydLinda