D.C. isn’t the only place where Uber, the sedan-by-smartphone company, is running afoul of the local authorities. Officials in Cambridge, Mass., are taking issue with the company’s practices in a scenario that looks awfully similar to the one that unfolded in Washington earlier this year.
In January, D.C. Taxicab Commissioner, upset that Uber’s proprietary fare meter was out of sync with the city’s taxis and limousines, orchestrated a sting operation on the company after calling Uber “illegal.”
Cambridge did the same in late May, when an official from the Cambridge Consumer Division punched up an Uber ride and asked to be ferried to a location where a Cambridge Police officer was waiting to bust Uber and its affiliated driver for running an unlicensed livery service and “using a measuring device not conforming to standards.”
Uber was slapped with a citation and fine, but appealed the action to the Massachusetts Division of Standards. The authority heard Uber’s appeal in early July, but in its ruling issued August 1, sided with Cambridge and deemed that Uber’s fare system is illegal, potentially jeopardizing the company’s business in the Boston area, where it has been operating since last October.
Specifically, Charles H. Carroll, the deputy director of the Division of Standards, found that Uber’s use of GPS-enabled devices (i.e., drivers’ smartphones) to calculate livery charges is untested and far from the norm of standardized taxi meters. While Carroll found nothing wrong with global-positioning technology in general, he wrote that it had never been used “in commercial applications for assessing transportation charges” until Uber showed up.
And Carroll’s recommended solution could spell logistical trouble for Uber. He ordered that Uber discontinue its metering system until national oversight boards set universal standards for the use of GPS-powered devices to charge for sedan rides. Until the National Council on Weights and Measures and the National Institute of Standards and Technology weigh in on the technology, Carroll wrote that Uber is running afoul of Massachusetts law.
“The decision is not from a judge, but from a regulator,” Travis Kalanick, Uber’s chief executive, tells DCist. “Our options are both legal—through an actual court of law—as well as political.” He says Uber plans to “make sure the politicians understand the benefits
of being seen as pro innovation and progress.”
Uber’s reactions to D.C. government actions earlier this year were memorable. After waging a publicity war with Linton, Uber began negotiating with Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) about amending taxicab regulations to accomodate its business model, including the implementation of a price floor.
But those negotiations collapsed when Kalanick announced his company’s opposition to a minimum fare and Uber launched an blitzkrieg lobbying effort at the D.C. Council, inundating members’ offices with thousands of emails and phone calls from customers demanding Uber be allowed to operate free of the D.C. Taxicab Commission’s oversight. The Council wound up adopting an amendment exempting Uber from DCTC regulations.
