On-demand ride-sharing services Lyft, Uber and Sidecar were fined $20,000 for operating what the CPUC alleges are illegal operations.
Last we spoke to ride-sharing start-up Lyft, they were attempting to work with the California Public Utilities Commission to quash a cease-and-desist that would put a halt on the phone app’s growing popularity. Co-founder John Zimmer expressed the company’s desire to create a positive relationship with the CPUC:
“We believe that the CPUC has an important job of consumer protection…”
Tweet this!
But if the news has told us anything over the last couple of days, it’s that the CPUC — and The City’s cab companies — aren’t going to let these new kids on the block maintain business without a couple more battle scars.
SFGate reported Wednesday that Lyft, along with other ride-share companies Uber and SideCar, were each fined $20,000 for not having permits to operate what amount to illegal taxi and limousine services.
One issue cited by the CPUC was a lack of insurance to cover property damage. In response, Lyft said they had already arranged for $1 million in per-incident insurance, well above the $750,000 the PUC requires.
Not to mention that two cabbies for Luxor filed a class action lawsuit on Friday against Uber, accusing them of unfairly competing with legally sanctioned cab companies.
Requests for comment from the Lyft co-founders were not answered by the time of publication.
The CPUC, on the other hand, claims that these companies are still not in compliance with its safety regulations. In a statement to VentureBeat, Jack Hagan, Director of the CPUC’s Consumer Protection and Safety Division wrote:
“If something happens to a passenger … it is the responsibility of the CPUC to have done everything in its power to ensure that the company was operating safely according to state law.”
Tweet this!
In a fight against the clock — which gives the companies in question 20 days to file an appeal or pay the fine — Zimmer and co-founder Logan Green sent an email to all outlets with an interest in keeping their company afloat. The email pleads:
“Peer-to-peer transportation is worth defending and we stand by our community of mustache-sporting Lyfters.”
Tweet this!
There are a couple of similar companies on the East Coast that are operating under a similar model: http://us.amovens.com/en for example, but I don’t think the drivers have to necessarily register through the DMV or anything. I wonder if that makes them less vulnerable to litigation.