Man in violation of privacy law

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Antitrust Law Daily, March 27, 2018

Philadelphia taxi drivers fail to revive antitrust claims against Uber

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

Taxicab drivers and a city taxi association, who had filed suit against Uber claiming that it had attempted a monopoly and violated antitrust laws when it burst onto the scene in Philadelphia, were unsuccessful in reviving their claims before the Third Circuit. Although the drivers urged the court to reverse a district court decision dismissing their claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia agreed that the conduct they had alleged fell short of what was necessary to constitute an attempted monopoly under antitrust laws. The district court’s judgment was affirmed (Philadelphia Taxi Association, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., March 27, 2018, Rendell, M.).

From 2005 to 2014, taxicab operators in Philadelphia, who had been required by the Philadelphia Parking Authority ("PPA") to have a medallion and certification to operate in the city, saw the value of those medallions climb from a worth of $65,000 to $545,000, on average. Uber began operating in the city in 2014, without securing the medallions, complying with PPA’s rules, or paying the fines it imposed. In October of 2016, the state legislation approved Uber’s operation in the city, under the PPA’s authority, as Transportation Network Companies. As such, they had to obtain licenses and comply with some requirements, but they were excluded from several other requirements.

By November of 2016, the medallions held by the taxicab drivers were worth only $80,000 on average. Because some of the drivers had used the medallions, which are property, as collateral on loans, the reduction in their value led to default and confiscation of approximately 15 percent of the medallions. Moreover, between 2014 and 2016, nearly 1200 medallion drivers left their employment and began to drive for Uber. There were over 1700 Uber drivers operating during that time and they served over 700,000 riders during that time. The taxicab drivers alleged that medallion rides reduced by 30 percent and they experienced a commensurate decrease in earnings.

The individual taxicab companies, along with the Philadelphia Taxi Association, filed suit against Uber alleging, in a later amended complaint, one count of attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and seeking treble damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. Uber filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and the drivers appealed.

Competition is king. "Competition is at the heart of the antitrust laws," the appeals court explained, and only reduction of competition or anticompetitive conduct is problematic under those laws. The underlying principle, thus, is "to protect competition, not competitors." In their complaint, the taxicab drivers alleged that Uber had flooded the market, operated illegally and at a lower cost, and stole away their drivers. They alleged that Uber broke the rules knowingly and is now close to achieving monopoly power because it had created an unfair playing field. They argued that the new legislation that authorized TNCs to operate will facilitate the monopoly’s creation. The appeals court was unpersuaded.

Consumers benefited. First, the allegations of purportedly anticompetitive conduct were unsupported by any allegations demonstrating a harmful effect on competition, the court found. The allegations about Uber’s conduct—flooding of the market, illegal and noncompliant operation, and luring away of taxicab drivers—did not amount to anticompetitive conduct that violated antitrust laws. Flooding the market favors competition because it leads to lower prices for customers, greater availability of rides, and "a high-tech alternative to the customary method of hailing taxicabs and paying for rides." Lower prices benefit consumers and "lost business alone cannot be deemed a consequence of ‘anticompetitive’ acts by the defendant." Also, Uber’s ability to operate at a reduced cost is a good business practice, rather than an anticompetitive act. "Running a business with greater economic efficiency is to be encouraged, because that often translates to enhanced competition among market players, better products, and lower prices for consumers." Moreover, hiring rivals is anticompetitive only in certain circumstances and those did not exist in this case.

No dangerous probability. The drivers also alleged that Uber had a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power because its actions had pushed several competitors out of the market. The allegations, however, fell short of the mark and showed only that Uber and medallion taxicabs had similar numbers of cars operating in the city. Nor was the court persuaded that Uber had the power to bar others from entering the market. Other competitors, like Lyft, could enter without difficulty, as had Uber itself. None of the other elements of the drivers’ claims would allow the court to infer a dangerous probability either.

Antitrust standing. Finally, the court explained that an alternative basis for its ruling was that the claim fails for lack of antitrust standing. The taxicab drivers could not prove an antitrust injury. Although they lamented Uber’s entry into the market "as a campaign to inflict economic harm and cause Appellants to lose their market share," they alleged only their own financial hardship as injury. "Tellingly," the court explained, "they fail to aver an antitrust injury, such as a negative impact on consumers or to competition in general, let alone any link between this impact and the harms Appellants have suffered." In fact, according to their own pleadings, Uber’s entry into the market increased the availability of vehicles and competition. The taxicab drivers therefore are urging the court to apply antitrust laws "for the express opposite purpose of antitrust laws: to compensate for their loss of profits due to increased competition from Uber." The argument that Uber’s conduct was illegal, and thus created a violation, also held no water because the U.S. Supreme Court has already "squarely rejected illegal conduct as a basis for antitrust injury."

The case is No. 17-1871.

Attorneys: Stephen R. Bolden (Fell & Spalding) for Philadelphia Taxi Association Inc., Aamir Trans., Inc., Aanyia Trans., Inc., Abaas Trans., Inc., Abnik Inc. and B&M Transport, Inc. R. Brendan Fee (Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) for Uber Technologies Inc.

Companies: Philadelphia Taxi Association Inc.; Aamir Trans., Inc.; Aanyia Trans., Inc.; Abaas Trans., Inc.; Abnik Inc.; B&M Transport, Inc.; Uber Technologies Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust DelawareNews NewJerseyNews PennsylvaniaNews

Back to Top

Antitrust Law Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.

A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.