All for me and none for thee.
This is the latest in a series of federal court decision rejecting such arguments. The right to operate a taxi business does not create a "property" right in suppressing competition.
"We want big poppa paying attention to us," Gene Freidman once told
Reason. "I want the government...protecting me."
A federal court correctly rejects a dubious takings claim by Philadelphia cab companies.
A win for ride-sharing and Alaskans
Why should local governments demand a default language when we have the tools to sort it all out?
New competition from ride-sharing services is not grounds for a takings claim, Georgia Supreme Court rules, because no taking took place. Obviously.
Secret tool allowed drivers to detect and avoid stings.
By declining to take up the case
Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. Chicago, the Supreme Court allows customers of Uber, Lyft, and similar e-hailing services to breathe easier.
City government claimed there was a need for only 125 taxi permits, and one cab company held them all.
That allows for fair competition on a level playing field, and lets consumers choose which service they prefer.
Attempts by cabbies in Milwaukee and Chicago to crush competition from Uber-like services or more taxi drivers both shot down in federal court by Judge Richard Posner; Reason Foundation amicus brief relied on.
“People want to be able to press on their smartphone and request a ride,” says commission chairman, stating the obvious.
Two city aldermen say it’s about protecting pedestrians, but it’s really about protecting taxi companies.
Surge pricing is a market mechanism, not an illegal pricing scheme.
Neither the taxi commission nor the NYPD wants you to know much about them.