|
 U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson in Hartford said the plaintiffs
failed to show that Uber competed unfairly, tried to lure away their
drivers, or misrepresented its services, fares and drivers'
insurance coverage to passengers.
The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Uber should
follow the same licensing and safety regulations that they are
required by law to observe.
He said this was because it was only recently that Connecticut's
legislature even asked the state's Department of Transportation to
consider whether Uber should be covered.
Uber had argued that it was unclear how state transportation laws
could "apply to a technology company" such as itself and which owns
no cars and employs no drivers.
 Uber spokesman Matthew Wing said the decision lets Connecticut
drivers and passengers keep receiving the "economic and
transportation benefits" that the company provides.
Lawyers for the taxi and limousine companies did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
Thompson said the plaintiffs may file an amended lawsuit if they
wish.
The lawsuit is similar to many filed in the United States against
San Francisco-based Uber, which lets customers summon vehicles
through a smartphone application.
[to top of second column] |
In their complaint, which also sought damages, the Connecticut
companies said Uber succeeds because it can "prey parasitically on
established taxicab and livery services" by cutting corners and
ignoring laws meant to protect passengers.
Lyft Inc, another ride-sharing service, was originally also a
defendant, but was dismissed from the case in February.
The case is Greenwich Taxi Inc et al v. Uber Technologies Inc et al,
U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, No. 14-00733.
(Additional reporting by Ankush Sharma in Bengaluru; Editing by
David Gregorio and Leslie Adler)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
