Uber’s War on Lyft Could Prompt Federal Investigation

The ride-share service’s apparent attempts to sabotage its competitors might become red meat for the Federal Trade Commission or state attorneys general.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
Aug. 27, 2014, 10:08 a.m.

Uber is the darling of Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans alike, but the com­pany’s cut­throat cam­paign against its ride-share rivals could land it in hot wa­ter with state and fed­er­al reg­u­lat­ors.

The com­pany has re­portedly equipped an army of in­de­pend­ent con­tract­ors with burn­er phones and cred­it cards as part of a “soph­ist­ic­ated ef­fort to un­der­mine Ly­ft and oth­er com­pet­it­ors” and poach drivers, ac­cord­ing to an art­icle pub­lished by The Verge this week.

The San Fran­cisco start-up’s ag­gress­ive re­cruit­ment meth­ods are already well doc­u­mented, but the size and soph­ist­ic­a­tion of its ex­ploits re­vealed by The Verge could war­rant an an­ti­trust in­vest­ig­a­tion by the Fed­er­al Trade Com­mis­sion or state at­tor­neys gen­er­al, ac­cord­ing to sev­er­al an­ti­trust ex­perts and former gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials in­ter­viewed by Na­tion­al Journ­al.

A former FTC of­fi­cial, who spoke on the con­di­tion of an­onym­ity, said that re­ports of Uber’s mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion aligns strongly with sim­il­ar an­ti­trust in­vest­ig­a­tions the agency has con­duc­ted in the past.

“The heart of what’s of­fens­ive here, the in­dis­pens­able in­gredi­ent, is the can­celed or­ders,” the of­fi­cial said. “That kind of be­ha­vi­or would be seen as hav­ing no re­deem­ing be­ne­fits at all, poses com­pet­it­ive bur­dens, and falls with­in the con­cep­tion of un­fair com­pet­i­tion.”

Uber stands ac­cused of em­ploy­ing street teams of con­tract­ors to dis­rupt Ly­ft’s launch plans in New York City who were handed “two Uber-branded iPhones and a series of val­id cred­it-card num­bers to be used for cre­at­ing dummy Ly­ft ac­counts.” Uber has also al­legedly made a habit of or­der­ing Ly­ft rides and can­celing them to avoid de­tec­tion, a meth­od that would prompt rival drivers to waste time driv­ing to the pickup spot. Ly­ft con­tends Uber has caused thou­sands of can­celed rides, something Uber denies was done in­ten­tion­ally.

Solely or­der­ing a Ly­ft ride and try­ing to con­vince the driver to switch sides is likely not enough to mer­it an in­quiry by the FTC, which po­lices against “un­fair” and “de­cept­ive” busi­ness prac­tices, said Dav­id Balto, a former policy dir­ect­or at FTC and an an­ti­trust law­yer.

But the ap­par­ent soph­ist­ic­a­tion and du­pli­city of Uber’s so-called “Op­er­a­tion SLOG” in New York City raises an­ti­trust con­cerns. “The call­ing and can­celing would make it very dif­fi­cult for [Ly­ft] to ef­fect­ively op­er­ate,” Balto ad­ded. “That’s the kind of thing that could very well be in­vest­ig­ated by the FTC.”

“Uber may be a 21st-cen­tury in­nov­at­or, but it looks like it’s pulling out the tac­tics of a 19th-cen­tury rob­ber bar­on,” Balto said. “Some of these tac­tics are things that John D. Rock­e­feller would be proud of.”

In a blog post pub­lished shortly be­fore The Verge‘s story, Uber denied it ever in­ten­tion­ally can­cels rides, but ac­know­ledged that “we can’t suc­cess­fully re­cruit drivers without talk­ing to them—and that means tak­ing a ride.”

“We’re all about more and bet­ter eco­nom­ic op­por­tun­ity for drivers,” the com­pany wrote. “We nev­er use mar­ket­ing tac­tics that pre­vent a driver from mak­ing their liv­ing—and that in­cludes nev­er in­ten­tion­ally can­celing rides.”

Uber, which now boasts a pres­ence in more than 160 cit­ies around the world, is con­front­ing a new wave of scru­tiny just a week after hir­ing former Obama cam­paign wiz­ard Dav­id Plouffe to lead its policy team. In an­noun­cing his new gig, Plouffe wrote that he was eager take on Uber’s main op­pon­ent, the “Big Taxi car­tel,” which he main­tains “has used dec­ades of polit­ic­al con­tri­bu­tions and in­flu­ence to re­strict com­pet­i­tion, re­duce choice for con­sumers, and put a strangle­hold on eco­nom­ic op­por­tun­ity for its drivers.”

The tech com­pany has also re­cently earned the ad­or­a­tion of a num­ber of Re­pub­lic­ans look­ing to curry fa­vor with its young, largely urb­an base.

Earli­er this month, the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee launched a pe­ti­tion so­li­cit­ing sup­port for “in­nov­at­ive com­pan­ies like Uber,” in re­sponse to back­lash from the tra­di­tion­al taxi lobby and ride-shar­ing reg­u­la­tions pro­posed in some cit­ies and states. And Sen. Marco Ru­bio has touted the com­pany as an ex­ample of free-mar­ket in­genu­ity that should not be sub­ject to strict reg­u­lat­ory red tape.

The com­pany’s suc­cess, size, and in­flu­ence is likely to in­crease the chances of trig­ger­ing either a reg­u­lat­ory in­vest­ig­a­tion or private lit­ig­a­tion, said Richard Fein­stein, former dir­ect­or of the FTC’s an­ti­trust en­force­ment.

The FTC has his­tor­ic­ally been an ally to the boom­ing app-driv­en ride-shar­ing in­dustry. In April, the agency wrote a let­ter ar­tic­u­lat­ing its be­lief that reg­u­la­tions should be lim­ited to safety and con­sumer pro­tec­tion and not for the pur­poses of levy­ing high­er li­cense fees than those placed on tra­di­tion­al taxi fleets.

An Uber spokes­man ac­cused The Verge story of be­ing thinly sourced and re­veal­ing noth­ing new, telling Na­tion­al Journ­al that it lacks “any veri­fic­a­tion” of the claims or doc­u­ments pub­lished.

Uber has nev­er pub­licly taken re­spons­ib­il­ity for re­ports of em­ploy­ees or­der­ing phony rides from Ly­ft. In Janu­ary, the com­pany is­sued an apo­logy on its web­site ac­know­ledging that some em­ploy­ees in New York were “too ag­gress­ive” in its tac­tics of or­der­ing rides from com­pet­it­ors and can­celing them mo­ments later. But the apo­logy in­dic­ated the tac­tics were or­ches­trated by loc­al staffers and not ap­proved or ini­ti­ated by cor­por­ate high­er ups.

“We have mes­saged city teams to cur­tail activ­it­ies that seek lead gen­er­a­tion in this man­ner,” the com­pany wrote.

Ly­ft did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment for this story.

What We're Following See More »
UNLIKELY TO GET A VOTE, LIKELY TO ANGER GOP SENATORS
Obama Nominates Ambassador to Cuba
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP REFUSED VOTE ON FCC COMMISIONER
Reid Blocks Tech Bill Over “Broken Promise”
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Source:
FLINT FUNDING STILL AT ISSUE
Spending Bill Fails to Clear 60-Vote Hurdle
5 hours ago
THE LATEST
SURPASSED 80 MILLION VIEWERS
Monday’s Debate Was Most Watched Ever
6 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE
‘WASN’T PREPARED’
Hill Republicans Don’t Like What They See in Debate
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

"It was obvious he wasn't prepared." “He only mentioned her email scandal once." "I think he took things a little too personal and missed a lot of opportunities to make very good debate points." That's just a smattering of the reactions of some elected Republicans to Donald Trump's debate performance.

Source:
×