Uber Technologies and Lyft are facing antitrust litigation in San Francisco over claims that their entire business model, which relies on setting payment rates for drivers classified as gig workers, constitutes an illegal price-fixing conspiracy.
The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, accuses the two ridesharing giants of exploiting their “duopoly” over the $61 billion business to drive down compensation for their drivers, whom they’ve fought for years to label as independent contractors rather than employees with workplace rights.
“By preventing drivers from doing so, Uber and Lyft harm competition in both the labor market as well as the consumer market,” the complaint alleged. “Customers pay more, and drivers earn less.”An Uber spokesperson said in a statement that the “complaint misconstrues both the facts and the applicable law and we intend to defend ourselves accordingly.”
Uber and Lyft label their drivers independent contractors and not employees, the centerpiece of many legal challenges in recent years in state and federal courts across the country.
The plaintiff drivers in the new lawsuit contend Uber and Lyft “deprive those drivers of economic independence” by fixing the prices that drivers must charge.The drivers are represented by Denver-based Towards Justice and the Edelson plaintiffs’ firm.”For a decade, Uber and Lyft have been trying to have it both ways,” Rachel Dempsey of Towards Justice told Reuters. “
They’re trying to avoid the responsibilities of an employer, while also maintaining a level of control over the transaction that is inconsistent with the idea that these drivers are independent contractors.”
The drivers named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit previously opted out of arbitration agreements with Uber and Lyft, allowing them to contest employment-related matters in court.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh