Seattle was the first US city to pass a law allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize. But since that law passed in 2015, the business community has continually challenged it.
A federal appeals court sided with the business community on Friday, May 11. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision saying Seattle doesn’t have the authority to say whether drivers can collectively bargain over the fees ride-hailing companies charge them, according to Reuters.
The court was examining Seattle’s law because of a lawsuit brought last year by the US Chamber of Commerce, which lists Uber and Lyft as members. The chamber said Seattle’s ordinance violates antitrust laws because it could allow independent contractors to collude through collective bargaining and fix prices.
“The court’s decision is a win for rideshare drivers, riders and the entire Seattle community,” said Uber spokesman Caleb Weaver.
Lyft, too, said it was pleased with the decision. “This positive development will maintain the flexibility of drivers to choose when, where and for how long they drive—the very things that make Lyft so attractive to drivers and useful for passengers,” Lyft spokesman Adrian Durbin said.
Though the 9th Circuit ruled Friday that ride-hail drivers couldn’t negotiate fees, it did say states could regulate the rates Uber and Lyft charge passengers. It also said city laws on collective bargaining couldn’t be pre-empted by federal labor law.
Full Content: Reuters
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh