Anoush Cab, Inc. v. Uber Tech. Inc., 8 F.4th 1

Background

Plaintiffs (Anoush Cab and affiliates) are Boston taxi medallion owners/operator-lessors who controlled 362 medallions and allege Uber’s UberX P2P (launched June 4, 2013) unlawfully competed with taxis and devalued medallions.
From 2013–Aug 5, 2016 (the conduct period), municipal regulation and enforcement of Boston’s Taxi Rules against TNCs was ambiguous; city officials and reports signaled non-enforcement and a regulatory phase-in.
Uber launched UberX without requiring medallions or hackney licenses for drivers; it set variable fares and reimbursed drivers for many citations, tracked citations, joined the City’s Taxi Advisory Committee, and entered a data‑sharing agreement with the City.
Plaintiffs sued under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (unfair methods of competition / unfair or deceptive acts), common‑law unfair competition, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy, seeking >$122M.
After a bench trial the district court found (1) Uber did not commit the “extreme or egregious” conduct necessary for Chapter 93A liability in the regulatory context, (2) plaintiffs failed to prove common‑law or conspiracy/abetting claims, and (3) plaintiffs’ damages experts were unreliable.
The First Circuit affirmed: given the totality of circumstances and municipal ambiguity, Uber’s conduct did not meet Chapter 93A’s heightened standard and plaintiffs failed to prove damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Uber’s operation of UberX during the conduct period violated Chapter 93A as an unfair method of competition	Uber operated unlawfully in violation of Boston Taxi Rules and that unlawful competition alone satisfies § 11	Uber acted amid regulatory ambiguity, sought city guidance, and behaved consistent with marketplace standards; its conduct was not ‘‘extreme or egregious’’	Held for Uber — conduct did not rise to Chapter 93A liability under the heightened/egregious standard
Whether plaintiffs’ common‑law unfair competition claim succeeds based on Uber’s unlicensed competition	Unlicensed competition against licensed taxi owners establishes unfair competition liability	Plaintiffs’ pleadings treated the claims as coextensive with § 93A; taxi regulations were not enacted to protect against unauthorized competition in the way plaintiffs assert	Held for Uber — common‑law claim fails (no separate basis shown)
Whether plaintiffs can state aiding‑and‑abetting or civil‑conspiracy claims	Uber aided drivers’ unlawful acts and conspired to drive competitors out	Those claims require an underlying tort; plaintiffs failed to prove underlying unfair‑competition tort or coercive conspiracy	Held for Uber — aiding/abetting and conspiracy claims fail
Whether plaintiffs proved damages with reasonable certainty	Plaintiffs’ experts established medallion‑value loss and lost profits totaling ≈$135M	Defendants attacked the methodologies and showed experts’ models were unreliable and did not disaggregate regulatory effects	Held for Uber — district court reasonably found damages evidence unreliable (also moot given liability ruling)

Key Cases Cited

PMP Assocs., Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 321 N.E.2d 915 (Mass. 1975) (announcing the original three‑part test for unfair trade practices under Chapter 93A)
Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc., 396 N.E.2d 149 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979) (formulation of the "rascality" standard applied in Chapter 93A analysis)
Mass. Emp'rs Ins. Exch. v. Propac‑Mass, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 435 (Mass. 1995) (refocusing unfairness inquiry on nature, purpose, and effect of challenged conduct)
Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 802 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2015) (Chapter 93A unfairness requires extreme or egregious conduct under totality of circumstances)
Baker v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 771 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2014) (applying Massachusetts standards and explaining the Court’s approach to the egregiousness requirement)
LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc., 919 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 2019) (standard of review for bench trial findings on Chapter 93A claims)
Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (a statutory or common‑law violation is not per se a § 93A violation)
Phila. Taxi Ass'n, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 886 F.3d 332 (3d Cir. 2018) (relevant precedent rejecting antitrust/anticompetitive claims against Uber where market‑level harm to consumers was not shown)