A Third Circuit panel affirmed a win for Uber Technologies on Tuesday, March 27, finding that just because the ride-hailing service may have harmed Philadelphia Taxi Association’s business, the group has not properly alleged Uber acted anti-competitively, reported Reuters.
The broadly worded decision by a unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals could help Uber defend against similar claims in New York and other cities where the taxi industry is struggling, claimed Reuters.
Taxicab companies and a trade group, the Philadelphia Taxi Association, claimed that Uber had an unfair advantage by being allowed to enter Philadelphia in October 2014 without having to comply with various local regulations governing taxis.
They said its presence caused a 30% ddrop in taxi ridership and the loss of nearly 1,200 drivers who jumped to Uber, while the value of medallions needed to operate taxis plunged from US$545,000 in 2014 to about US$80,000 two years later.
Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell nevertheless said the lawsuit was “devoid of allegations of truly anticompetitive conduct” and failed to show any intent to monopolize.
Full Content: Law 360
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
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