[eridius]

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

[avalaunch]

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

[eridius]

They're paying cancellation fees. If I order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut in order to find out who the drivers were, and paid for them, then there's no issue. Even though I don't intend on eating the pizzas, I still paid for the service. In this case, Uber is paying the cancellation fees for the privilege of booking, then cancelling, a Gett ride.

[avalaunch]

If you order pizzas and pay for them, you're completely the transaction as expected. If you order a car from a car service and then cancel it, you're not. The fact that a cancellation fee exists doesn't give you the right to use the system in such an unintended manner.

A better analogy than the pizza analogy might be a "customer" repeatedly buying clothes with the intent to wear and then return them. Despite the fact that there is a return policy in place, the fact that the customer never intended on keeping any of the clothes makes his behavior fraudulent.

[eridius]

There is nothing illegal about repeatedly buying clothes, then returning. If I do that enough the store may bar me from the premises for being exceedingly annoying, but they certainly can't charge me with anything.

[yapcguy]

Another example is a cafe.

Get a bunch of people to repeatedly queue up but when they get to the counter decide they don't want to order anything.

Just the sight of a long queue outside the door is going to put off legit customers

Clearly Uber are engaging in activities to disrupt and cause harm to the business of their competitor.

[avalaunch]

I said it was fraudulent, which it definitely is. Whether or not it fits the legal definition of fraud is debatable.

[aidenn0]

Some localities do have laws forbidding buying something with the intent to return it.

[goldenkey]

With the intent to disrupt business. They can be easily sued for this practice. This isn't a consumer doing so, this is a company having their employees vehemently attack a competitor.

[yapcguy]

Exactly.

Legit customers can't book cars because they're busy and when they do the drivers might bail because they think its yet another fake order.

Screw Uber. Theyre not a tech start-up, they're an illegal car service masquerading as a tech company.

[brianmcdonough]

Thank you for making it clear why this practice is bad corporate practice for those who are not as moral in their perspective. Uber seems hell bent on becoming the only game in town and then raping their customers during peak periods.

[Dylan16807]

It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough.

It's dickish, but no actual harm is done.

And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.

[hangonhn]

"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done."

In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.

[Dylan16807]

It's still not fraud to call someone and waste their time for a while. See also: telemarketers

[hangonhn]

Fraud is only one type of harm. The bigger question is whether there is harm, regardless of type. In the restaurant case, there is harm even though it's not fraud. In Gett's case it's not really fraud either but one can argue there was harm done as well. Information can confer competitive advantage. The question that remains is who's fault it is. It's kind of dumb on Gett's part to leave themselves wide open. I'm not experienced enough in jurisprudence to really determine that.

[kd0amg]

Wasting their time via deception might be though.

[avalaunch]

What you describe is a hoax, contrasted to fraud in that there was no intent of gain on the perpetrator's part and that no harm was caused (debatable in your example). What Uber did, and in my example, there was both intent of gain and harm.

You could argue that there was no harm to Gett because of the cancellation fees, but that's only true if the cancellation fees are greater than the cost they incurred which may or may not be true.

[Dylan16807]

It hinges on whether there was harm done. I strongly doubt there was harm.

Or at least intentional harm. Such as if they meant to cancel immediately but didn't.

[6d0debc071]

> It hinges on whether there was harm done.

Are you a lawyer familiar with fraud related laws in New York?

IANAL. However, in the UK I suspect it would hinge on whether you gained or whether there was harm. Fraud by false representation is - IRC - defined in those sorts of terms in the Fraud Act 2006.

Point being this stuff varies and doesn't necessarily align with what we might intuit it does.

[ryguytilidie]

I don't feel like the fact that they defrauded the drivers/service because they wanted their information from them makes this any less fraudulent...

[doktrin]

> I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud"

How exactly is this not fraud?

[HillRat]

I'd say it's more of "tortious interference." If true, this was -- to paraphrase Fouché -- worse than a crime, it was stupid. It seems that Uber is so blasé about the tidal flood of lawsuits it's facing that it is willing to court more.

[untog]

(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?)

Presumably so that the customer can contact the driver if they need to pass on instructions about a specific place to be picked up, etc.

[eridius]

Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you.

Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the duration of the trip. I havent' checked but I doubt anybody actually does this. And in the absence of this level of anonymity, I would at the very least expect a car service app to require you to place the call before giving you the phone # of the other person.

[aetherson]

I work for Flywheel, an Uber competitor. We do not expose driver or passenger phone numbers to either party at all (the exact mechanism is a little different than what you propose, but the effect is the same). Driver can call passenger and passenger can call driver and neither will ever see the other person's actual number.

[eridius]

Good for you. Since you're doing this, and according to yid, Uber is also doing something similar, I'm even more surprised that Gett is not only exposing real phone #'s, but doing so without even requiring a phone call to be placed.

[yid]

> Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiaates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you.

Actually, I think they use some sort of phone proxy service. I once looked at my driver's phone and he had a totally different number listed for me that I did not recognize (same area code though).

[eridius]

Oh? So it sounds like Uber is doing something similar to what I proposed then. That's good.

[asnyder]

If you don't mind sharing, I would love to know what sort of thing is used for this. Normally I would think Twilio but that's more of create your own number and pay per minute.

[rahimnathwani]

Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the duration of the trip.

You wouldn't even need a bunch of phone numbers. Assuming caller ID works correctly, you can use that to decide where to route the call. Customer A is calling? Route to Driver X? Driver Y is calling? Route to Customer B.

[eridius]

Well, that just cuts it down from 2 numbers to 1, and it assumes that the caller ID hasn't been futzed with. Certainly plausible, just perhaps slightly less reliable.

[rahimnathwani]

No, it cuts it down from many many numbers (2 numbers per driver/passenger pair) to 1.

I haven't seen an instance of caller ID being 'futzed' with in domestic calls from domestic mobile phone numbers, but I agree it could happen for people roaming internationally.

[samolang]

And they paid cancellation fees.

[epipsychidion]

If drivers keep getting requests cancelled, they will be less prompt and enthusiastic about actual ones. The cancellation fee is calculated on the assumption that frequent orders will not be deliberately placed to be subsequently cancelled.

[samolang]

I agree that they may have violated the spirit of the contract. But the contract specifically handles the case of cancelling an order (including some restitution), so I would hardly consider it fraud.

[epipsychidion]

Running into the path of a moving car isn't fraud? End result is the same for when it's an accident.

[samolang]

Running into the path of a moving car is only fraud if you claim the driver is at fault. If you admit responsibility and pay for any damages then it is not fraud.

[techreporter]

They claim they paid cancellation fees. Gett claims the charges are pending. At this point it would be stupid of them to not let those charges through though.

[sitkack]

If Uber wasn't a douche, they would have just booked rides in the cars and personally talked to the drivers. Absolutely no harm in that. What they did shows an utter lack of tact.

[mgulaid]

good point.. lack of class

[ryguytilidie]

...after what they were doing was exposed.

[pc86]

No, they paid cancellation fees because you get charged when you cancel. This wasn't "Oh, sorry, here's $10."

[ryguytilidie]

The fact that it said "they ultimately paid the fees...some of which are still pending" made me feel like these weren't immediate, automatic charges.

[encoderer]

It's not automatic. I've had to legitimately cancel before and have never been charged a fee.

[pc86]

Have you cancelled on the day of or within just a few hours of the scheduled pickup time?

[jaredsohn]

These rideshare apps usually have you schedule for ASAP rather than for some future time, so chances are if you cancel it would be much sooner.

Not sure about this company, but for Uber the cancellation fee should only happen if you cancel after five minutes of scheduling a ride. I've seen Lyft and other rideshare companies have similar policies.

http://support.uber.com/entries/22326831-Ride-Cancellations

[enjo]

What is Gett's cancellation policy?

[pkinsky]

I assume there's something in Gett's terms of service prohibiting what Uber was doing. If so, they're liable under the CFAA.