Skip to main content

Uber and Lyft may be partly to blame in San Francisco's Yellow Cab bankruptcy

Few entities have reached the iconic status the yellow taxi has — Joni Mitchell wrote a song about them, they’re effectively the symbol of New York City, and no episode of Sex and the City would be complete without somebody desperately hailing a cab. But now, those glory days may be coming to a close, and bands may need to come out with songs like “Big Black Car” or “Large Pink Mustache” instead. Last Friday, San Francisco’s Yellow Cab Cooperative filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and blamed Uber and Lyft for its demise.

The California outpost of the service has been plagued with issues over the last few years. Since 2006, Yellow Cab has faced numerous costly lawsuits, including one that singlehandedly drained $14.5 million from the company coffers, and a more recent case in which a cab crash left a woman partially paralyzed, costing the taxi service over $8 million. In addition to these large single-ticket items, there are still some 150 outstanding claims, some of which could cost the company around $10 million in settlement fees.

Recommended Videos

And in the midst of all these legal issues, Yellow Cab has also had to compete with the rise of San Francisco born and bred transportation startups like Lyft and Uber, who seem to have profited at the expense of more traditional cab services. Not only have these companies allegedly poached drivers, but they’ve also taken considerable business away from the service — a phenomenon that has been observed not only in San Francisco, but the rest of the country and the world over as well.

Uber and Lyft have continued to drop their prices, and as their fleet grows, it’s becoming harder and harder for companies like Yellow Taxi to remain competitive. “Apps like Uber appear to be growing the overall transportation pie,” a spokeswoman for Uber told the Wall Street Journal last Thursday. “This is not a zero-sum game; more options are better for riders and drivers alike,” she said.

In the company’s bankruptcy declaration, Pamela Martinez, the co-op’s president, wrote, “the struggles arising from dramatic change of the operating environment and loss of drivers (and thus revenue) caused by competition from ride-sharing services (such as Uber and Lyft), drained Yellow Cab’s remaining equity.”

Yellow Cab represents the single largest taxi operator in San Francisco, with 1,100 drivers and 522 taxi medallion holders (a third of the total number in the city). But just because it’s filing for bankruptcy doesn’t mean it’ll stop offering services. Rather, the company said in a statement, it “intends to continue its operations as before, and is taking steps…to ensure this goal and prevent disruption to YCC’s [Yellow Cab Co-op] passengers, drivers, employees, members,” and others involved.

Lulu Chang
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Fascinated by the effects of technology on human interaction, Lulu believes that if her parents can use your new app…
California sues Uber, Lyft to force them to make drivers employees
Uber

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is suing Uber and Lyft over their alleged misclassification of their workers as independent contractors instead of as employees. 

Becerra filed a lawsuit against the two rideshare companies on Tuesday, saying that they violated California's new Assembly Bill 5 law that requires app-based companies to identify contractors as regular employees of the company. Under the bill, contractors are eligible for basic protections like minimum-wage requirements, health benefits, and Social Security. 

Read more
Tesla, Warner Bros. dodge some claims in ‘Blade Runner 2049’ lawsuit, copyright battle continues
Tesla Cybercab at night

Tesla and Warner Bros. scored a partial legal victory as a federal judge dismissed several claims in a lawsuit filed by Alcon Entertainment, a production company behind the 2017 sci-fi movie Blade Runner 2049, Reuters reports.
The lawsuit accused the two companies of using imagery from the film to promote Tesla’s autonomous Cybercab vehicle at an event hosted by Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) Studios in Hollywood in October of last year.
U.S. District Judge George Wu indicated he was inclined to dismiss Alcon’s allegations that Tesla and Warner Bros. violated trademark law, according to Reuters. Specifically, the judge said Musk only referenced the original Blade Runner movie at the event, and noted that Tesla and Alcon are not competitors.
"Tesla and Musk are looking to sell cars," Reuters quoted Wu as saying. "Plaintiff is plainly not in that line of business."
Wu also dismissed most of Alcon's claims against Warner Bros., the distributor of the Blade Runner franchise.
However, the judge allowed Alcon to continue its copyright infringement claims against Tesla for its alleged use of AI-generated images mimicking scenes from Blade Runner 2049 without permission.
Alcan says that just hours before the Cybercab event, it had turned down a request from Tesla and WBD to use “an icononic still image” from the movie.
In the lawsuit, Alcon explained its decision by saying that “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”
Alcon further said it did not want Blade Runner 2049 “to be affiliated with Musk, Tesla, or any Musk company, for all of these reasons.”
But according to Alcon, Tesla went ahead with feeding images from Blade Runner 2049 into an AI image generator to yield a still image that appeared on screen for 10 seconds during the Cybercab event. With the image featured in the background, Musk directly referenced Blade Runner.
Alcon also said that Musk’s reference to Blade Runner 2049 was not a coincidence as the movie features a “strikingly designed, artificially intelligent, fully autonomous car.”

Read more
Audi halts vehicle deliveries to the U.S. as it mulls impact of tariffs
2021 Audi Q5

If you’d been thinking of buying an Audi, now might be the time.  The German brand, owned by the Volkswagen Group, has announced it would halt shipments to the U.S. in the wake of President Donald Trump’s 25% tariffs on all imported vehicles.
Audi is currently holding cars that arrived after the tariffs took effect, on April 3, in U.S. ports. But it still has around 37,000 vehicles in its U.S. inventory, which should be able to meet demand for about two months, according to Reuters.
Automakers on average hold enough cars to meet U.S. demand for about three months, according to Cox Automotive.
Audi should be particularly affected by the tariffs: The Q5, its best-selling model in the U.S., is produced in Mexico, while other models, such as the A3, A4, and A6 are produced in Germany.
Holding shipments is obviously a temporary measure to buy time for Audi and parent company Volkswagen. If tariffs stay in place, vehicle prices would likely have to go up accordingly, unless some production is shifted to the U.S. Volkswagen already has a plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and is planning a new plant in South Carolina. That latter plant, however, isn’t expected to be operational until 2027 and is currently dedicated to building electric vehicles for VW’s Scout Motors brand.
Other global automakers have also taken drastic measures in response to Trump’s tariffs. Jaguar Land Rover on April 5 said it is pausing shipments of its its UK-made cars to the United States this month. The British sports-luxury vehicle maker noted that the U.S. market accounts for nearly a quarter of its global sales, led by the likes of Range Rover Sports, Defenders, and Jaguar F-PACE.
And on April 3, Nissan, the biggest Japanese vehicle exporter to the United States, announced it will stop taking new U.S. orders for two Mexican-built Infiniti SUVs, the QX50 and QX55.

Read more