Malden Transp., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.
286 F. Supp. 3d 264
D.D.C.2017Background
- Seven consolidated suits by over 700 Greater Boston taxi medallion holders challenge Uber (and in one action, its founders) for allegedly operating ride‑hail services outside local Taxi Rules and gaining an unfair competitive advantage.
- Boston Taxi Rules (notably Rule 403) require hackney driver and hackney carriage (medallion) licensing for vehicles offering for‑hire passenger pickup in the city.
- Uber launched in Boston in 2011 and UberX in 2013; Massachusetts enacted the TNC Act in August 2016, defining TNCs and preempting municipal regulation of TNCs going forward.
- Plaintiffs assert common‑law unfair competition and M.G.L. c. 93A claims (all plaintiffs); some plaintiffs assert antitrust (attempt to monopolize), tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and aiding/abetting claims.
- Court dismissed claims against individual founders Kalanick and Camp for lack of personal jurisdiction; it denied dismissal of common‑law and c.93A unfair competition claims against Uber, but granted dismissal of antitrust (attempt to monopolize / predatory pricing), tortious interference, and one civil‑conspiracy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over individual founders | Founders are liable and have sufficient contacts through running Uber | Founders lack sufficient Massachusetts contacts; employer contacts shouldn't be imputed | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (no general or specific contacts; veil‑piercing not pleaded) |
| Common‑law unfair competition & M.G.L. c.93A liability | Uber competed unfairly by operating without complying with Taxi Rules, imposing economic injury on medallion holders | Uber not subject to Taxi Rules during the relevant period; TNC Act preempts municipal regulation; §3 regulatory exemption applies | Survives motion to dismiss (plausible unfair competition / 93A claim pre‑Aug 5, 2016; regulatory exemption and Dial A Car abstention arguments rejected at pleading stage) |
| Antitrust — attempt to monopolize / predatory pricing | Uber priced UberX below cost to drive taxis out and will recoup later | Price competition and reported losses show lack of below‑cost, predatory scheme; plaintiffs fail to plead costs or recoupment plausibly | Dismissed for failure to plead predatory pricing specifics (no facts on Uber costs or dangerous probability of recoupment) |
| Aiding & abetting / civil conspiracy; tortious interference | Uber conspired with or aided drivers (or founders/employees) to violate Taxi Rules; interfered with plaintiffs’ business relationships | Uber characterizes drivers as independent contractors; plaintiffs’ interference claim is too generalized (market‑at‑large) | Aiding/abetting and conspiracy claims by Anoush plaintiffs survive (sufficient allegations of substantial assistance and knowledge); Taxi Maintenance conspiracy dismissed (no jurisdiction over individuals); tortious interference dismissed for lack of specific prospective business relationships |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be essentially at home)
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (predatory pricing requires below‑cost pricing and likely recoupment)
- A. B. & C. Motor Transp. Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Utilities, 327 Mass. 550 (licensed carriers may restrain competition by unlicensed carriers)
- Arthur D. Little, Inc. v. Dooyang Corp., 147 F.3d 47 (Chapter 93A unfairness analysis and injury requirement)