Case Against Newark and Uber Dismissed

Jan 23, 2017

This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. Terms apply to the offers listed on this page. For an explanation of our Advertising Policy, visit this page.

The City of Newark and Uber are clear to continue their operations agreement after a court case against them brought forward by a group of taxi owners was dismissed. New Jersey Federal District Court Judge William H. Walls dismissed the lawsuit against the city, filed by the Newark Cab Association and other cab owners.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in August 2016, alleged that the $10 million agreement between Uber and the City of Newark was illegal by applying a different standard of law to ride-sharing drivers. The Cab Association argued that because drivers were acting in the same capacity as taxi drivers, they should be subject to the same regulations as medallion owners.

The deal between Newark and Uber was announced in April 2016, and allowed drivers working through the app to operate throughout the city, including Newark Liberty International Airport. Under the 10-year agreement, Uber agreed to the license fee, as well as increased background checks on drivers and a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence.

With the order granting the motion to dismiss the case, both Newark and Uber are allowed to continue their operations, while travelers can still catch an Uber on the arrivals level at their terminal. Furthermore, the lawsuit could clear ride-sharing operations at other airports in the United States. Other major cities, including Austin, have faced lawsuits dealing with the legality of ride-sharing operations at airports and other places where they compete with taxis.

Although the lawsuit is settled for the moment, Uber and Newark are not necessarily in the clear; the Newark Cab Association could still appeal the decision. Neither side has formally commented about the judge’s decision.

Featured image courtesy of Uber.

Editorial Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are the author’s alone, not those of any bank, credit card issuer, airlines or hotel chain, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any of these entities.

Disclaimer: The responses below are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser’s responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.