|
pr0zac posted:ty reminded me to get around to watching that show tonight  pr0zac
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
Nineteen taxi companies sued Uber Technologies Inc. in federal court in San Francisco today, accusing the transportation network company of false advertising when it claims it has “the safest rides on the road.” The lawsuit alleges San Francisco-based Uber’s website and blog advertisements are false and misleading because its driver background checks and training are less rigorous than those of taxi companies. The claims in the federal lawsuit are similar to those in a state court case filed against Uber in San Francisco Superior Court in December by district attorneys George Gascon of San Francisco and Jackie Lacey of Los Angeles County on behalf of the people of California. But while the district attorneys’ suit emphasizes alleged harm to the public, the new lawsuit cites harm to taxi companies. The lawsuit contends the alleged false advertising has cost taxi companies lost profits, lost drivers, decreased value of shares, reduced number of cabs in service and “significant reputational harm.” It alleges, “Uber’s false and misleading advertisements convince customers that UberX offers a safer ride than plaintiffs’ taxi cabs. Accordingly, as a result of these representations, customers opt for taking UberX rides instead of taxi cab rides with plaintiffs.” The lawsuit claims Uber’s background checks of drivers are less rigorous than taxi companies’ because they don’t track crimes committed after an initial background check. Uber also doesn’t require drivers to take a safety training course or a written examination, unlike taxi companies, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims Uber is violating the federal Lanham Act, which bars false advertising, and California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. It seeks an injunction again Uber and financial compensation for the taxi companies. The plaintiff companies include San Francisco-based Royal Taxi and Citywide Dispatch and 17 other firms based in Southern California. Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend said in a statement, “This frivolous lawsuit is simply without merit. “As riders across the country know, Uber’s multilayered driver screening includes county, federal and multistate checks, and the rating system and traceability of the Uber platform gives riders and drivers unprecedented transparency,” she said. “This lawsuit was filed by an industry that for decades has ignored the safety of riders and drivers,” Behrend said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
I guess all of their lawyers are so busy responding to existential legal threats that they didn't have time to check the brand new intern's babys first ad copy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
isn't that advertising 101, don't claim things that aren't true
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:isn't that advertising 101, don't claim things that aren't true well, probably only if they're provably untrue
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:isn't that advertising 101, don't claim things that aren't true nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. in this case, claims of being the safest option would need to be backed up with some fairly solid metrics on drivers, incidents, training, etc. at the very least a commissioned report from some third-party consultant. i kind of want to submit an amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs that comprises little more than quotes from uber driver forums where they discuss hiding guns and knives everywhere and making sure they can kill their passenger at a moment's notice
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
i remember reading something long ago about "parity" in advertising. it used toothpaste as an example - that every toothpaste w/ fluoride is considered pretty much equally capable of fighting cavities, therefore anybody can claim in ads that their toothpaste is "the best" because it's, you know, tied for first. or something. idk if that was all just stupid bullshit though
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. please do this disrupt uber for us
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
EVGA Longoria posted:please do this
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:well, probably only if they're provably untrue yeah. plus you get to define what all the words in the copy mean
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. objection like a taxi driver doesn't do the same thing you're honoure
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
do the taxi companies have safety record info or are they just claiming background checks = safety?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yeah. plus you get to define what all the words in the copy mean nope, most legit orgs have "plain reading" guidelines where you don't get to pull some "what the definition of is is" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
I don't think that's actually a thing cause if it were advertising would end
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
legally, I mean. im sure marketing departments have standard, preapproved definitions
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
It’s been a bad few weeks for Uber, the San Francisco-based transportation technology company. After a spate of bad coverage, the ride-sharing business is facing bans in Spain, the Netherlands, and Nevada, as well as a lawsuit in California scrutinizing its driver background checks. The service was banned in New Delhi, after an Uber driver was accused of rape by a passenger earlier this month. Last month, senior vice president Emil Michaels was roundly criticized for suggesting that the company should dig up dirt on journalists critical of Uber. The company also recently disciplined a New York executive after he tracked a reporter’s location in an Uber car. Earlier this month, an Uber driver in New Delhi reportedly confessed to raping a passenger. These reports are troubling, to be sure. But that doesn’t mean we should start regulating Uber more stringently, or ban it outright. The company boasts comparatively rigorous safety requirements, and provides a very real value to consumers. For example, most American jurisdictions require a five-year gap between any felony convictions and a taxi driver’s application process. Uber mandates that its drivers not have DUIs, violent crimes, or sexual offenses on their record within seven years of their application. In addition, Uber requires seven years to pass before it considers applicants with gun-related violations or driving offenses such as hit and runs and reckless driving on their record. Uber also lets passengers and drivers rate each other, adding another layer of accountability. At the end of a bad ride, an Uber passenger can provide details of a driver’s behavior on the Uber app. Unlike taxi drivers, Uber drivers know inappropriate behavior will be reported quickly. This is an excellent safety feature, and the fact that drivers also rate passengers provides both passengers and drivers with an incentive to behave well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:that's it. they're giant babies who are scared of women irl They are a bunch of Rawhead Rexes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
at least most news orgs aren't parroting the 'uber is totes a ride sharing company' bs anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:legally, I mean. im sure marketing departments have standard, preapproved definitions legally, no. it's an internal thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
right. when uber says its the safest thats using the official uber definition of safe which may or may not correspond to what their users think of as safe. this makes it next to impossible to successfully challenge in court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
i bet very few black car passengers are assaulted or raped, therefore uber is the safest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:right. when uber says its the safest thats using the official uber definition of safe which may or may not correspond to what their users think of as safe. this makes it next to impossible to successfully challenge in court. uber collects the most money in "safety fees", therefore it is the safest
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:right. when uber says its the safest thats using the official uber definition of safe which may or may not correspond to what their users think of as safe. this makes it next to impossible to successfully challenge in court. i have never encountered a tech marketing division that maintained a list of internal definitions for common words like "safest" that wouldn't also be required by Legal to have a footnote claling out the basis for that definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:i kind of want to submit an amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs that comprises little more than quotes from uber driver forums where they discuss hiding guns and knives everywhere and making sure they can kill their passenger at a moment's notice do iiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. lemme help you get started http://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/2zlspa/1star_ill_take_that_hit/ 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Last month, senior vice president Emil Michaels was roundly criticized for suggesting that the company should dig up dirt on journalists critical of Uber. ah, the scientology strategy
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. do it
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:i kind of want to submit an amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs that comprises little more than quotes from uber driver forums where they discuss hiding guns and knives everywhere and making sure they can kill their passenger at a moment's notice this absolutely must be done
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:lemme help you get started http://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/2zlspa/1star_ill_take_that_hit/ lol there's no way any of that happened
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
duTrieux. posted:nothing that can be read as a verifiable statement of fact unless you're able to footnote it, even if you won't be putting the footnote in the copy itself. can they get off on a "mere puffery" defense? i.e. no one could be expected to believe they are literally the safest
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
listen, you're kidding yourself if the claim of 'safety' was ever anything but a dogwhistle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:can they get off on a "mere puffery" defense? i.e. no one could be expected to believe they are literally the safest doesn't explictly charging extra for a "safe rides" fee make it no longer puffery? i mean it's something they basically require you to "buy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
As a Millennial I posted:lemme help you get started http://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/2zlspa/1star_ill_take_that_hit/ Citizen Tayne posted:lol there's no way any of that happened
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
pay extra for safe rides. which means if you don't pay extra you get your stuff stolen and you get raped
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
asking some legal friends about the amicus curiae process, will report back in event of fruitfullnes
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I saw the leap bus this morning, it had one guy on it (and 3 leap employees)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:isn't that advertising 101, don't claim things that aren't true i'm sure uber follows advertising law every bit as closely as they follow every other law
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
this is like when soulja boy tried to diss krs one
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
duTrieux. posted:i have never encountered a tech marketing division that maintained a list of internal definitions for common words like "safest" that wouldn't also be required by Legal to have a footnote claling out the basis for that definition. regarding safety: since the dawn of wheeled transport passengers have paid fares in exchange for transportation; over the course of these many long centuries there have been countless accidents, abuses, and disasters. at uber we've only been facillitating these sorts of transactions for like 18 months or something, comprising only the smallest fraction of safety violations. ergo, safest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 21:21
|
|
