On top of what others have mentioned, Uber has also been caught sabotaging competing car services by ordering their cars and canceling them as a physical denial of service attack against the other company.
They didn't even apologize for that one, only stating that the marketing team was "overzealous". As far as anyone is aware nobody was reprimanded in any way over this debacle, which is par for the course as far as Uber goes.
Uber the product is great, Uber the company is shady as all get out. This is why I don't trust them to shape regulation any more than I trust the existing taxi lobby. They're all purely self-serving and anti-consumer when they think they can get away with it.
They are shifting all of the liability to the people who can least afford it. So far they have done everything in their power to not protect drivers like in the case last month. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-denies-fault-in-S... An uber driver killed a girl, but Uber is claiming they are not liable because he did not have an active fare at the time. It is unlikely this driver can ever make the family whole.
Additionally many car sharing services are operating without regard to the law. In some states the cars are getting seized. So far Uber has been covering the legal case, but they have no obligation to continue to do so.
The car seizure you reference was in Belgium for a service that technically complies with local laws according to Uber and they are providing legal assistance to the two owners of the seized cars. http://tech.eu/news/screw-innovation-uber-already-deemed-ill...
You mention that so far Uber is covering the legal costs without an obligation to do so. So that makes them bad?
So Uber is saying their insurance will cover 125k? This is not an adequate amount of coverage, and they are still shifting any liability away from the company, onto people who cannot afford the consequences. Who pays in a tragedy like this?
There have been many car seizures in the US and abroad. Many of these independent contractors do not have the resources to fight a legal battle without the help of Uber.
We may not like fees and the Boston promo may be tasteless but they aren't unethical.
I don't see a problem with surge pricing. If people aren't willing to pay then it won't last long. I'd like to see them have a bidding system to make it purely market driven.
I also don't see anything unethical with fighting unethical laws. Here in Austin we're in a very similar situation. The existing transportation companies have passed laws to entrench their positions and eliminate competition (eg min "black car" fares). Those laws are unethical. They do not protect us, they are anti-consumer.
insurance situation is still quite ambiguous; also no phone number - even for emergencies. Get into a worst case scenario accident, and a passenger dies in your Uber? Sorry no phone number, send an email with details and pics.
They didn't even apologize for that one, only stating that the marketing team was "overzealous". As far as anyone is aware nobody was reprimanded in any way over this debacle, which is par for the course as far as Uber goes.
Uber the product is great, Uber the company is shady as all get out. This is why I don't trust them to shape regulation any more than I trust the existing taxi lobby. They're all purely self-serving and anti-consumer when they think they can get away with it.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/