Taxi companies seek getaway from Uber price-fixing class action

Cab businesses offering rides through Uber say the ride-hailing giant's arbitration agreement extends to them as third parties.SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A group of taxi companies asked a federal judge Tuesday to transfer a class action from California to New York, after a New Yorker claimed the cab services were involved in a price-fixing conspiracy within Uber’s ride-hailing app.The defendants — Curb Mobility, Flywheel Technologies, Creative Mobile Technologies and its subsidiary ARRO — argued the class action should be moved to New York federal court. The plaintiff, Brendan Kretschmer, lives in Brooklyn, used the Uber app in New York and any supposed harm occurred there, said defendants’ attorney John Papianou.“This case is going to be litigated,” said Papianou. “It needs to be transferred to the most appropriate forum.”Flywheel attorney Michael Lindsay concurred and said even though Flywheel didn’t operate in New York, it was supportive of transferring the action.At a hearing for the defendants’ motions to change venue and compel arbitration, U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi wondered which jurisdiction’s laws should rule the day.“There needs to be subject matter and personal jurisdiction and venue authority,” said DeMarchi. “And which forum’s law has the jurisdiction to make the decision?”The class action was originally filed in New York in November 2025, but Kretschmer changed course and instead filed his complaint in Northern California federal court in February.Kretschmer claims the taxi companies colluded with Uber by offering rides on its app, in order to raise prices on all rides, including Uber’s, under a price-fixing scheme. The technology integration further solidifies Uber’s dominance in the ride-hailing industry, he adds in a Sherman Act antitrust claim.All the defendants operate in California and Uber is headquartered in California, noted Kretschmer’s attorney Stephen Lagos. Uber, while not currently a named defendant, will likely have critical witnesses needed for discovery and the action should be litigated in California, he said.Lagos also said Uber wasn’t a named defendant in the action because Kretschmer would be compelled into arbitration with Uber, per its user agreement, which would stifle Kretschmer’s and the potential class members possibility of relief.But Kretschmer and the class members entered into no such arbitration agreement with third-party cab services, argued Lagos. Taxi services are not mentioned by name in the user agreement, he said, and the “third parties” mentioned are related to the rider, such as a guest, and not specific third-party providers.Lindsay argued the mention of “third parties” could include providers as well, and it isn’t confined to just those of the user, as the language is unclear and there is no articulated definition.The defense sees the plaintiff in dispute with Uber, and not necessarily the cab companies. Lindsay insisted the plaintiff never took a ride with the taxi services, because in order to hail a cab through the app, a user must be on Uber’s platform.DeMarchi said it is the plaintiff’s discretion to sue any or all possible parties in the action, but called Uber the “elephant in the room.”She didn’t indicate from the bench her leanings on the motions and said she will provide a written order “as soon as I can.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads