[HiLo]

This is going to be wildly unpopular but 7.6 billion would be a number worth mentioning. (Although I also feel VW should be banned from the US, no negotiations.)

What kind of message do you send by only fining them a tiny portion of what they were only able to make by breaking your laws? I'm 24 and I know my peers already justify their potentially unethical business decisions by citing Uber. Really all I've taken away from this is to not really worry about state laws.

[craftkiller]

I don't think that applies here. This is about Uber failing to provide reports about handicapped access to CPUC. At best they would have saved an engineer's salary for a couple days by not filing, but as the article states, Uber did eventually make the report (just not on time). So I'm pretty sure Uber made $0 from this and lost $7.6 million. Even $7.6 million for a late report seems vindictive to me.

[HiLo]

Just like they eventually fell into compliance with certain cities, right? Where do you draw the line? Uber has a record of flagrantly, openly, defiantly breaking US laws - this fine came after they were stonewalling CPUC. If I were an institutional investor, at this point and looking towards the future, I would be furious for risking future business viability by continuing to openly flaunt your unwillingness to follow regulations. I would also probably sell my stake. There are plenty of other companies with room to grow that aren't running US Federal (and state!) government risk.

Let's think of the other companies that tried fucking with CPUC and evaluating their ethics as well. We can start with Enron. Travis is a smart guy but probably not as smart as those guys and even they got fucked. Even with their attachment to the hip to the federal government. Even with their company that was effectively many times bigger and more influential than a ride sharing app.

[craftkiller]

Alright, so I think you have 3 points here:

1. Uber has a track record of noncompliance

2. You don't want to invest in them because of #1

3. Enron also picked a fight with CPUC

So responding to each point:

1. True, and they probably should be fined for the late report, but as a public entity you can't go fining people exorbitant fees due to unrelated actions. For example, if I made some public bigoted remarks and then a police officer caught me littering they can't just go fining me 20x the normal fee because of what I said. CPUC should evaluate the fee solely on the basis of the infraction that caused the fine in the first place.

2. While I don't disagree with you, this is irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps it belongs it its own comment thread?

3. This seems similarly irrelevant to this comment thread. A better comparison would be how much Enron got fined for a similar offense against the CPUC.

[HiLo]

1. I would agree but this doesn't reflect the reality and underlying political reasons for regulation and enforcement. I would imagine the large fine (lol jk, a $7mm fine is a joke) was to send a message that stonewalling a public regulator is not acceptable. Maybe "unrelated," but as this is a discussion, I do find it ironic that the tech community hates Comcast and wants the infrastructure to be treated like utilities, and then is okay with their own golden child (uber) running all over a public utility... When they were trying to enforce antidoscrimination measures. The reason Uber can do this is the same reason Comcast can hold everything hostage (yes I know that's very simplified, I'm on my phone). The fine is very trivial compared to the damage discrimination has done to this country - it must be known that that is totally unacceptable.

2. Fair

3. I disagree. I think looking at the ethics of companies who have historically picked fights with CPUC is quite telling, and cited an example.

[bobby_9x]

"Really all I've taken away from this is to not really worry about state laws."

If you want to change an entire industry, then yes. Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Uber has opened up the ride-sharing market to many more people. You don't need a $1,000,000 medallion to make money as a driver any longer.

Since the monopoly has been forcibly broken, it also created competition, which in turn lowers the price for the consumer.

It's a win-win. They are only breaking laws protecting unethical business practices of the taxi cab companies.

[geofft]

But that sort of approach is effectively permission for an equally-well-funded unethical company that wants to disrupt an industry full of ethical business practices.

That's one of the biggest reasons that laws have publicly disclosed punishments associated with breaking them: they dissuade other people from breaking the law. If the penalty is low, and not because the people of California said that Uber should not be penalized (which presumably they can easily do), that communicates to everyone else who might want to break similar laws that the penalty will be equally low for them.

[HiLo]

EXACTLY.

[TeMPOraL]

> They are only breaking laws protecting unethical business practices of the taxi cab companies.

That, and also laws protecting ethical business practices of the taxi cab companies, which are often unprofitable but desirable for the city population. And also laws protecting employees. And tax codes.

It's true that Uber managed to stir the pot, and definitely helped in fixing the stagnation of taxi services sooner. But that doesn't excuse their flippant attitude towards law and society, or corrupt example they give to the future startup founders.

[HiLo]

What the fuck! They are breaking laws related to protecting people from discrimination! And all you can focus on is, hey, there's other people doing bad things too! Why can't you get mad at them? Seriously wtf.

[Scarblac]

It's not win-win, all the value (in required quality level of the service across the board) that regulation ensured goes down the drain. Competing on price will mean that corners will now be cut everywhere.