Malden Transportation, Inc. et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
404 F.Supp.3d 404
D. Mass.2019Background
- Thirty-four Tutunjian-family corporations (the Anoush plaintiffs) own and lease 362 Boston taxi medallions; EJT Management and Boston Cab Dispatch (also family-owned) handled operations and dispatch.
- Uber (and its TNC subsidiary Rasier) launched UberX P2P in Boston on June 4, 2013, allowing drivers to use personal vehicles without hackney medallions or commercial driver licenses and offering lower fares and surge pricing.
- City enforcement of Boston’s Taxi Rules was inconsistent: prior police practice and a 2013 consultant Report suggested limited enforcement of prearranged rides; city officials at times told Uber to “just launch,” created a Taxi Advisory Committee (TAC) including Uber, and entered a data‑sharing agreement with Uber.
- During the conduct period (June 4, 2013–Aug. 4, 2016) taxi ridership and plaintiffs’ leasing revenues fell sharply; plaintiffs alleged Uber’s P2P service caused medallion values and leasing income to collapse.
- Plaintiffs sued under M.G.L. c. 93A § 11 and for common-law unfair competition, seeking damages for lost leasing revenue and medallion value; the Court held a seven-day bench trial and evaluated causation and damages via competing regression experts.
- The Court found plaintiffs’ expert regression models unreliable, declined to find Uber’s conduct met the heightened “extreme or egregious” standard for unfairness under § 11, and entered judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uber’s launch/operation of UberX P2P was an "unfair" practice under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 11 | Uber violated Taxi Rules and therefore engaged in unfair competition that caused plaintiffs’ losses | Uber relied on regulatory ambiguity and city interactions (including tacit approval); its conduct was competitive market behavior, not egregious unfairness | Court held no § 93A liability—Uber’s conduct not sufficiently "extreme or egregious" given totality of circumstances and city statements/actions |
| Causation: Did Uber’s conduct cause plaintiffs’ lost leasing revenue and medallion value? | Plaintiffs’ expert (Dr. Williams) modeled damages attributing declines to Uber’s P2P entry | Defendants challenged the models for omitting key variables and misattributing regulatory/petitioning effects | Court found plaintiffs failed to prove causation via reliable evidence; expert models were unreliable |
| Damages: Were damages proven with reasonable certainty? | Plaintiffs calculated large damages based on regression outputs and lost‑profits analyses | Defendants argued the regressions were methodologically flawed and the lost‑profits check was unrealistic | Court held damages not proved with reasonable certainty; excluded plaintiffs’ expert analyses |
| Applicability of Noerr‑Pennington (petitioning) and res judicata defenses | Plaintiffs did not meaningfully address petitioning attribution; res judicata not raised timely by defendants | Defendants argued some regulatory activity was petitioning (Noerr) and earlier litigation barred claims (res judicata) | Court applied Noerr‑Pennington concerns to criticize plaintiffs’ damages attribution; but rejected res judicata defense as untimely and prejudicially late |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 17 N.E.3d 1066 (Mass. 2014) (elements of a Chapter 93A commercial claim)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 94 N.E.3d 786 (Mass. 2018) (definition of unfairness under § 11 requires conduct within the penumbra of established unfairness and substantial injury)
- Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 802 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2015) (‘‘extreme or egregious’’ standard for unfairness under Chapter 93A)
- Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774 (1st Cir. 1996) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances, marketplace standards, and equities inform unfairness inquiry)
- Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Int’l Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 752 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2014) (standards for reliability and methodological underpinning of regression and expert analyses)
- Air Safety, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bos., 94 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (damages must be founded on solid facts; cannot be speculative)
- Davric Maine Corp. v. Rancourt, 216 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2000) (Noerr‑Pennington doctrine protects petitioning activity from certain liability)
- Smith v. Jenkins, 732 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013) (Daubert/Rule 702 standards applied to assess admissibility and weight of expert testimony)