Uber fights back against an alleged outrageous Delaware tax
New Beginnings for Florida in 2017
January 1, 2017
Uber Court Case
Beating Lands Uber Back In The Courtroom
January 16, 2017

Uber Ride Sharing App Court Case

Ever since the ride-sharing app, Uber debuted in March of 2009, it seems that the name has been coming across many different headlines and not a positive way. Uber has been seen on multiple court calendar calls across the nation for various reasons and it seems that the multi-billion dollar corporation just can’t catch a break.

Uber is fighting back!

The ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft have been battling toe to toe with The Las Vegas City Council on a per-driver fee the city has tried to impose in 2016. In December 2016, The Law Vegas City Council has agreed to settle the lawsuit but why?

The council enacted the $100 per-driver fee, which was set to be based on the average number of drivers operating over a six-month period, with a 4-2 vote last January. Delaware-based Lyft filed a lawsuit about a month later over the fee and called the fee an “illegal tax” and stated it was “outrageously high”.’

About a week later, Rasier LLC, an Uber subsidiary, filed a similar complaint. Both cases were combined, and the city negotiated with the two companies to reach a conciliation. As both companies have pending lawsuits regarding this issue, the companies have not been required to pay the per-driver fee.

Negotiations in effect for Uber


Delaware Uber Lawsuits

Last July, a judge granted both companies’ motions for preliminary injunctions, finding that the city’s ordinance violated Nevada state statute and preventing the city from enforcing it. At that point, settlement discussions began.

The agreed settlement discontinues the $100 per-driver fee and calls for the ride-sharing companies to drop their lawsuits against the city, reliant on the council approving a new ordinance, which will come back to the City Council at a future meeting. Each company will instead pay the city an annual flat $17,500 license fee.

As part of the settlement, the companies agree not to challenge the replacement ordinance as it’s now written, but if the city alters or amends it before or after it’s enacted without written consent by the companies, they’re not bound by the non-challenge clause. The terms also call for the companies to drop their lawsuits without prejudice and to cover their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *