Are Uber drivers refusing rides to blind passengers with service animals? Is DoorDash complaining about high fees and turning around and doing the same? Senior RSG contributor Paula Gibbins will go over these questions and more in this week’s roundup.
Looking for even more rideshare news? Check out our latest edition of Rideshare Drivers React here, where we share your comments and breaking news about Uber, Lyft, delivery companies and more.
Uber must pay $1.1 million for denying rides to blind woman [Market Watch]
Summary: Award claimed to be largest of its kind, judge rejects Uber’s argument that drivers are independent and it shouldn’t be held liable for their decisions.
Uber Technologies Inc. has been ordered to pay more than $1 million in an arbitration case brought by a blind passenger who said she and her seeing-eye dog were denied rides more than a dozen times.
Lisa Irving, 56, a California resident who said she was denied rides or harassed 14 times by different Uber drivers in San Francisco in 2016 and 2017, was awarded damages totaling $324,000, plus an additional $805,313.45 for attorneys’ fees and other legal costs. The award is believed to be the largest of its kind, according to her legal team, which on Thursday filed to confirm the award in San Francisco Superior Court….
My Take: Let’s get some things clear first: according to Uber and Lyft’s terms of service, drivers cannot discriminate against passengers, including passengers with service animals. Business owners are only allowed to ask two questions under the Americans with Disabilities Act to determine if a service dog is legitimate:
- Is this animal required because of a disability?
- What work or task has this animal been trained to perform?
Read more about service dog fraud here.
Unfortunately, many drivers have had people lie about their ‘service animals’ and have had their cars messed up (or worse) because of fraudsters and their poorly trained pets.
It’s difficult for drivers, because we must follow ADA rules as business owners (and per Uber and Lyft’s TOS) but we can’t always rely on passengers to be truthful. It ends up hurting people like the woman in this article (and drivers who are unfairly deactivated.)
One way to get around this? Always keep towels in your car. There are no rules saying you can’t put towels under passengers or their pets, and if you don’t have seat covers, this is a cheap way to protect your car. A well-trained service animal won’t make a mess (other than maybe some shedding), but if it’s not a service animal, it might. Always have a dash camera for situations like this (and many others) too – here are our top recommended dash cams for drivers.
Much like the issue of allowing minors to ride without adults, the burden should be on Uber and Lyft to handle these cases. If a driver says someone was lying about their service dog, have a real person contact the driver and get their story. If a passenger says they were discriminated against, call both parties and see what the story is.
But that would take too much time and effort from Uber or Lyft, and we just know that’s not going to happen.
DoorDash pushes back against fee delivery commissions with new charges [NBC News]
Summary: For nearly a decade, Grand Lake Kitchen, across from picturesque Lake Merritt, where locals head for leisurely walks, had become a popular breakfast and brunch destination. So many visitors ordered the $14 avocado toast and the $11 vegetarian sandwich called the Kamala Llama — a nod to Oakland’s favorite daughter — that in 2018 it opened a second location nearby.
But since the coronavirus pandemic hit and California restaurants closed to indoor dining, co-owner May Seto Wasem’s business has dropped by as much as 80 percent compared to 2019, when just one of her restaurants brought in revenue of $3.8 million. Wasem said that through the pandemic, DoorDash and other app-based delivery services became a “necessary evil” to survive. But she, like many other restaurateurs, has struggled to cover costs while also paying pricey delivery fees….
My Take: We all know the pandemic created a kind of vacuum for DoorDash where they were making profits left and right; business has been booming for them thanks to all the increased demand for people staying home all the time.
But what about the restaurants we’re ordering the food from? They have our business, but are they surviving? The fees that DoorDash charges restaurants can be costly and cut into these restaurants’ bottom lines. I hope that DoorDash and restaurants are able to find a mutually beneficial dollar amount they can both be happy with. I don’t want to see my favorite locally owned restaurants go under because of astronomical fees.
DoorDash Accuses Olo of Charging it Too Much [Restaurant Business Online]
Summary: Olo’s largest partner alleges that it was charged higher fees than other providers and is suing the company for $7 million.
Third-party delivery service DoorDash is seeking $7 million in damages from online ordering company Olo for allegedly charging DoorDash higher fees than it assessed other providers, a breach of an agreement between the two.
The dispute between Olo and its most important partner comes to light just weeks after Olo debuted on the New York Stock Exchange with a soaring initial public offering. Olo provides online ordering, delivery integration and other technology services for restaurant chains.
DoorDash began working with Olo in March 2017, using its Rails and Dispatch platforms that connect restaurants to delivery providers. At the time, Olo said in a so-called most-favored nation clause that it would never charge DoorDash higher transaction fees than what other providers were charged….
My Take: I can’t help but think that the shoe is on the other foot for DoorDash. As mentioned above with the restaurants feeling they are being overcharged by DoorDash, DoorDash thinks they are being overcharged by Olo.
It’s a vicious circle and it seems the “winner” is always whoever can squeeze the most money out of the one below them.
Amazon-Backed Deliveroo Secures $10.5 Billion Valuation in London IPO [The Wall Street Journal]
Summary: Online food-delivery startup prices offering at the bottom of its range, amid concern over profit outlook.
Food-delivery startup Deliveroo Holdings PLC priced its initial public offering at the bottom of its range, valuing the Amazon . com Inc.-backed company at £7.6 billion, equivalent to around $10.5 billion, after its profit outlook came under increased scrutiny.
The company, the U.K.’s answer to DoorDash Inc., said Tuesday it would sell shares at £3.90 apiece, below its initial target of as much as £4.60. Deliveroo had already cautioned the sale would be at the lower end of expectations. It will start trading in London on Wednesday under the ticker ROO.
As part of the offering, Deliveroo is issuing about £1 billion worth of new shares, while existing shareholders, including Amazon, are also selling a portion of their stakes. The company has three anchor investors taking up 30% of the deal, a spokeswoman said….
My Take: A new player is entering the field. Deliveroo is not new. It was founded in 2013 in the UK. However, it is different from many delivery companies we have here in the U.S. For one, it has an employee model.
While the IPO didn’t kick off as grandly as they expected, Deliveroo might be a force to look out for. They mainly operate in the UK, but they also have 200 locations across the U.S.
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Lawsuit Against Uber and Lyft Moves Forward After Judge Refuses to Dismiss [SIA]
Summary: A Massachusetts judge rejected motions by Uber Technologies Inc. (NYSE: UBER) and Lyft Inc. (NASDAQ: LYFT) to dismiss a lawsuit by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey seeking to prohibit the companies from classifying drivers as independent contractors and have them classified as employees.
The case will now proceed forward.
“Today’s court decision is a major victory in our ongoing fight to support and protect Uber and Lyft drivers from unfair and exploitative practices,” Healey said. “The court plainly rejected Uber and Lyft’s latest attempt to deprive their drivers of basic protections that help them earn a living wage, including minimum wage, overtime and earned sick time.”
Healey said her lawsuit aims to force Uber and Lyft to comply with laws already on the books….
My Take: It appears that Massachusetts is battling with Uber and Lyft similarly to how California was when AB-5 passed. This isn’t the first instance in New England where a judge determined drivers should be classified as employees.
Will Massachusetts face a bigger battle with the rideshare companies? We shall see.
What do you think about DoorDash complaining about high fees while charging small restaurants high fees? Is it hypocritical or just them doing business?
-Paula @ RSG
