uber connecticut ruling

8/20/2019 Uber Connecticut Ruling

1/30

!

!"#$%& ($)$%( ($*#+$ +,!*$

($*#+$ ,- +,""%+$#+!$

####################################$

%

&'(()*+,- ./0+1 +),21 /,( ./0+ %

3('4+,(1 +),21 ,/3+)5 ,/6 ,578/)91 %

+),21 ,:'.+) 75.5' ;+4('9 3('4+,(1 %

+),21 (/3. -/'.YHKIH!IH/I CO NRQ ;KLRKX /EN @L ,CWLN + KLM ,CWLN ++1

UQPSQEN@AQB[\ NRKN :TQU QLVKVQM @L WLOK@U KLM MQEQSN@AQ NUKMQ

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ ( 3C &-


2/30

>

SUKEN@EQP @L A@CBKN@CL CO NRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN :LOK@U .UKMQ 8UKEN@EQP

/EN1 ,CLL2 &QL2 3NKN2 ZZ D>#!!?K1 QN PQ]2 (“CUTPA”) in Count

+++\ NRKN :TQU @LNQLN@CLKBB[ @LNQUOQUQM ^@NR ECLNUKENWKB

UQBKN@CLPR@SP @L ,CWLN +4\ that Uber violated the “use or

invest” proR@T@N@CL @L !_ :232,2 Z !à>HKI1 NRQ 'KEbQNQQU

Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”)1 @L ,CWLN 4\

that Uber violated the “interest in or control over” prohibition

@L !_ :232,2 Z !à>HTI1 '+,51 @L ,CWLN 4+\ KLM NRKN :TQU

violated the “conduct of enterprise” prohibition in 18 U.S.C.

Z !à>HEI1 '+,51 @L ,CWLN 4++2

:TQU XCAQP NC M@PX@PP NRQ KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN WLMQU


3/30

G

#. -)+$!)/ )//%0)$#,"(

“The eKXQLMQMf ECXSBK@LN1 ^R@ER eNRQ ECWUNf XWPN KEEQSN KP

NUWQ OCU SWUSCPQP CO NQPN@LV @NP PWOO@E@QLE[1 KBBQVQP NRQ

following circumstances.” 7CLPb[ A2 7CUKVRKL1 !>F DG1 >DD

H>M ,@U2 !``FI2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN NRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN =QSKUNXQLN CO

.UKLPSCUNKN@CL @P NRQ PNKNQ KWNRCU@N[ NRKN UQVWBKNQP NK$@EKT KLM

B@AQU[ PQUA@EQP2 .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN CL CU KTCWN /SU@B

>D1 >?!D1 :TQU TQVKL NK$@EKT KLMgCU B@AQU[ CSQUKN@CLP @L

,CLLQEN@EWN ^@NRCWN ECXSB[@LV ^@NR PNKNQ BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP

ECLEQUL@LV PWER CSQUKN@CLP2 .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN :TQU

COOQUP NRUQQ N[SQP CO ECLAQ[KLEQ#OCU#R@UQ AQR@EBQP @L

,CLLQEN@EWN% :TQU01 :TQU6;/,h ,KUP1 KLM :TQU 3:4P2>

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN :TQU ECXXWL@EKNQP ^@NR EWPNCXQUP

through a free smart phone application (“app”). The app allows

ECLPWXQUP @L ,CLLQEN@EWN NC PWXXCL K BC^#ECPN QAQU[MK[ AQR@EBQ

(UberX) or a more expensive livery car, including a “black car”

or an “SUV”. Once a user opens the Uber app, it M@PSBK[P K XKS

of the user‟s location, or K MQP@VLKNQM S@EbWS SC@LN1 M@PSBK[P

NRQ KAK@BKTBQ AQR@EBQP @L NRQ LQ@VRTCURCCM1 KLM PNKNQP NRQ ^K@N

N@XQ OCU QKER N[SQ CO EKU2 .RQ WPQU NRQL PQBQENP NRQ N[SQ CO

EKU RQ CU PRQ ^KLNP TKPQM CL RC^ XWER NRQ WPQU ^KLNP NC PSQLM

KLM RC^ XKL[ EKUP @L QKER SU@EQ UKLVQ KUQ LQKUT[2 .RQ KSS NRQL

> The plaintiffs allege that Uber‟s other services, UberTAXI and UberLUX, are

LCN EWUUQLNB[ KAK@BKTBQ @L ,CLLQEN@EWN2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ & 3C &-


4/30

D

M@PSBK[P NRQ LKXQ KLM SRCNCVUKSR CO NRQ MU@AQU CO NRQ PQBQENQM

:TQU#KOO@B@KNQM EKU KLM PQLMP K NQ$N XQPPKVQ NC NRQ WPQU ^@NR

the driver‟s projected arrival time and cellular phone nWXTQU2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN :TQU C^LP LC EKUP1 LC NK$@EKT

EQUN@O@EKNQP1 LC B@AQU[ SQUX@NP KLM LC SBKNQP1 KLM QXSBC[P LC

MU@AQUP2 .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN :TQU @P1 @L OKEN1 SUCA@M@LV

NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ PQUA@EQP @L ,CLLQEN@EWN TQEKWPQ NRQ

KOO@B@KNQd cars are hailed by Uber‟s smart phone app on an “on

demand” (for taxicabs) or “prescheduled” (for livery vehicles)

basis and are assigned to customers through Uber‟s computer

system with fares determined by Uber‟s fare charging system.

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP allege that the defendant “partners” with

the plaintiffs‟ drivers, QKER CO “whoeXf XKbQePf KL @BBQVKB P@MQ

MQKB ^@NR :TQU NC NKbQ @NP EWPNCXQUP ^R@BQ P@XWBNKLQCWPB[

working a normal shift with his or her authorized company.”

H/XQLMQM ,CXSBK@LN KLM /SSB@EKN@CL OCU .'51 8UQB@X@LKU[

Injunction and Permanent Injunction, Doc. No. 33 (“Am. Compl.”),

i a?2I .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN NRQ MQOQLMKLN1 @LNQU KB@K1

X@PUQSUQPQLNP NC EWPNCXQUP @NP ECXSB@KLEQ ^@NR ,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P

KLM UQVWBKN@CLP1 X@PUQSUQPQLNP @NP @LPWUKLEQ ECAQUKVQ1

X@PUQSUQPQLNP NRQ PKOQN[ CO @NP MU@AQUP1 X@PUQSUQPQLNP @NP

KOO@B@KN@CL ^@NR BK^OWBB[ CSQUKN@LV NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[

ECXSKL@QP1 KLM X@PUQSUQPQLNP @NP OKUQP2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC KBBQVQ NRKN NRQ MQOQLMKLN WLOK@UB[

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ ) 3C &-


5/30

Y

ECXSQNQP ^@NR NRQX TQEKWPQ NRQ MQOQLMKLN @P LCN ECXSB[@LV ^@NR

,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP ECLEQUL@LV NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[

AQR@EBQP ^R@ER NRQ SBK@LN@OOP XWPN OCBBC^1 KLM NRKN NRQ

MQOQLMKLN @P NCUN@CWPB[ @LNQUOQU@LV ^@NR NRQ ECLNUKENWKB

UQBKN@CLPR@SP TQN^QQL NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KLM NRQ@U MU@AQUP KP ^QBB

KP NRQ ECLNUKENWKB UQBKN@CLPR@SP TQN^QQL NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KLM

EUQM@N EKUM SUCEQPP@LV ECXSKL@QP2

##. /%0)/ ($)"&)*&

*RQL MQE@M@LV K XCN@CL NC M@PX@PP WLMQU 'WBQ !>HTIHaI1 NRQ

ECWUN XWPN KEEQSN KP NUWQ KBB OKENWKB KBBQVKN@CLP @L NRQ

ECXSBK@LN KLM XWPN MUK^ @LOQUQLEQP @L K B@VRN XCPN OKACUKTBQ NC

NRQ SBK@LN@OO2 3QQ 3ERQWQU A2 'RCMQP1 D!a :232 >G>1 >Ga H!`FDI2

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, a plaintiff‟s obligation to provide the „grounds‟

of his „entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and

ECLEBWP@CLP1 KLM K OCUXWBK@E UQE@NKN@CL CO NRQ QBQXQLNP CO K

cause of action will not do.” 6QBB /NBKLN@E ,CUS2 A2 .^CXTB[1

YY? :232 YY?1 YYY H>??FI HE@N@LV 8KSKPKL A2 /BBK@L1 DF_ :232

265, 286 (1986) (on a motion to dismiss, courts “are not bound

NC KEEQSN KP NUWQ K BQVKB ECLEBWP@CL ECWERQM KP K OKENWKB

allegation”)). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders

naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.”

/PREUCON A2 +]TKB1 YYa :232 aa>1 aF_ H>??`I H]WCN@LV .^CXTB[1

550 U.S. at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Factual

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ @ 3C &-


6/30

a

KBBQVKN@CLP XWPN TQ QLCWVR NC UK@PQ K U@VRN NC UQB@QO KTCAQ NRQ

PSQEWBKN@AQ BQAQB1 CL NRQ KPPWXSN@CL NRKN KBB KBBQVKN@CLP @L NRQ

complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” .^CXTB[1 YY?

:232 KN YYY HE@NKN@CLP CX@NNQMI2 -C^QAQU1 NRQ SBK@LN@OO XWPN

SBQad “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” +M2 at 570. “The function of a motion

to dismiss is „merely to assess the legal feasibility of the

ECXSBK@LN1 LCN NC KPPK[ NRQ ^Q@VRN CO NRQ QA@MQLEQ ^R@ER X@VRN

TQ COOQUQM in support thereof.‟” Mytych v. May Dep‟t Store Co.1

GD M !G?1 !G! H=2 ,CLL2 !```I H]WCN@LV '[MQU (LQUV[

=@PNU@T2 A2 7QUU@BB ;[LER ,CXXCM@N@QP1 +LE21 FD_ M FFD1 FF`

(2d Cir. 1984)). “The issue [on a motion to dismiss] is not

^RQNRQU eNRQf SBK@LN@OO ^@BB SUQAK@B1 TWN ^RQNRQU RQ @P QLN@NBQM

to offer evidence to support his claims.” :L@NQM 3NKNQP A2 9KBQ

)Q^ -KAQL -CPS21 F>F G>I2

+L @NP UQA@Q^ CO K XCN@CL NC M@PX@PP OCU OK@BWUQ NC PNKNQ K

claim, the court may consider “only the facts alleged in the

SBQKM@LVP1 MCEWXQLNP KNNKERQM KP Q$R@T@NP CU @LECUSCUKNQM T[

UQOQUQLEQ @L NRQ SBQKM@LVP KLM XKNNQUP CO ^R@ER cWM@E@KB LCN@EQ

may be taken.” 3KXWQBP A2 /@U .UKLPS2 ;CEKB Y?D1 ``> M !>1

!Y H>M ,@U2 !``GI2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 8 3C &-


7/30

F

###. (+!((#,"

). +1234 #5 -6789 ):;9? @A !.(.+. B @@CAD6ED@EDFE

“Section 1125(a) . . . creates two distinct bases of

B@KT@B@N[% OKBPQ KPPCE@KN@CL1 Z !!>YHKIH!IH/I1 KLM OKBPQ

advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B).” Lexmark Int‟l, +LE2 A2 3NKN@E

,CLNUCB ,CXSCLQLNP1 +LE21 !GD 32,N2 !GFF1 !G_D H>?!DI2 YHKIH!IH6I2

.C QPNKTB@PR K OKBPQ KMAQUN@P@LV EBK@X WLMQU 3QEN@CL

DGHKI CO NRQ ;KLRKX /EN1 K SBK@LN@OO XWPN SUCAQ NRQ

OCBBC^@LV QBQXQLNP% H!I NRQ MQOQLMKLN RKP XKMQ K OKBPQ

CU X@PBQKM@LV PNKNQXQLN\ H>I NRQ OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV

PNKNQXQLN RKP KENWKBB[ MQEQ@AQM CU RKP NRQ EKSKE@N[ NC

MQEQ@AQ K PWTPNKLN@KB SCUN@CL CO NRQ @LNQLMQM

KWM@QLEQ\ HGI NRQ MQEQSN@CL @P XKNQU@KB1 @L NRKN @N @P

B@bQB[ NC @LOBWQLEQ SWUERKP@LV MQE@P@CLP\ HDI NRQ

MQOQLMKLN SBKEQM NRQ OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV PNKNQXQLN @L

@LNQUPNKNQ ECXXQUEQ\ KLM HYI NRQ SBK@LN@OO RKP TQQL@LcWUQM KP K UQPWBN CO NRQ X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL1 Q@NRQU

T[ M@UQEN M@AQUP@CL CO PKBQP CU T[ K BQPPQL@LV CO

VCCM^@BB KPPCE@KNQM ^@NR @NP SUCMWENP2

7QUEb (SUCAK /& A2 &LCP@P 32S2/21 `?! M DGa1 DD`#Y?

H32=2)292 >?!>I KOO‟M1 Fa? DF H>M ,@U2 >?!DI2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ . 3C &-


8/30

_

.RQ SBQKM@LV PNKLMKUM WLMQU


9/30

`

NUKLPSCUNKN@CL#request service.” (Mem. in Supp., at 5#a2I

+L =@KB / ,KU1 K BW$WU[ EKU PQUA@EQ ECXSKL[ PWQM N^C

NK$@EKT ECXSKL@QP1 KBBQV@LV NRKN NRQ[ ^QUQ A@CBKN@LV NRQ ;KLRKX

Act “by misrepresenting to Dial A Car‟s actual and potential

ECUSCUKNQ KEECWLN EWPNCXQUP NRKN NRQ@U NK$@EKTP EKL BQVKBB[

SUCA@MQ ^@NR@L e=2,2f NRQ PKXQ eBW$WU[ EKUf PQUA@EQ KP =@KB /

Car.” 82 F.3d at 486. Dial A Car claimed that by using regular

NK$@EKTP NC SUCA@MQ BW$WU[ EKU PQUA@EQ @L =2,2 NRQ N^C NK$@EKT

ECXSKL@QP ^QUQ A@CBKN@LV KL KMX@L@PNUKN@AQ CUMQU @PPWQM T[ NRQ

=2,2 .K$@EKT ,CXX@PP@CL2 .RQ =2,2 ,@UEW@N LCNQM NRKN NRQ

,CXX@PP@CL RKM LCN KMMUQPPQM1 @L KL KMcWM@EKN@CL CU OCUXKB

UWB@LV1 ^RQNRQU NRQ BW$WU[ EKU PQUA@EQ SUCA@MQM T[ NRQ NK$@EKT

ECXSKL@QP A@CBKNQM NRQ KMX@L@PNUKN@AQ CUMQU @L ]WQPN@CL KLM

“there [wa]s no dispute that such a question [wa]s ^@NR@L NRQ

jurisdiction of the D.C. Taxicab Commission.” +M2 KN D__2 .RQ

=2,2 ,@UEW@N ECLEBWMQM NRKN NRQ @PPWQ ^KP K XKNNQU CO PNKNWNCU[

ECLPNUWEN@CL OCU NRQ ,CXX@PP@CL KLM RQBM NRKN NRQ ;KLRKX /EN

MCQP LCN SUCA@MQ K EKWPQ CO KEN@CL OCU =@KB / ,KU NC QLOCUEQ @NP

SUQOQUUQM @LNQUSUQNKN@CL CO NRQ KMX@L@PNUKN@AQ CUMQU2 .RQ ECWUN

stated that “at a minimum, there must be a clear and unambiguous

PNKNQXQLN OUCX NRQ .K$@EKT ,CXX@PP@CL UQVKUM@LV eNRQ NK$@EKT

companies‟] status before a Lanham Act claim can be

QLNertained.” +M2 KN D_` HQXSRKP@P @L CU@V@LKBI2

Here, the plaintiffs allege that Uber‟s affiliated vehicles

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ D 3C &-


10/30

!?

XWPN TQ ECLP@MQUQM KP NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[ AQR@EBQP WLMQU

Connecticut regulations because they can be hailed by Uber‟s

smart phone app on an “on demand” (taxicabs) or “prescheduled”

HB@AQU[ AQR@EBQPI TKP@P\ NRKN WLMQU ,CLLQEN@EWN PNKNWNQP1 KBB

NK$@EKTP CU B@AQU[ AQR@EBQP XWPN RKAQ NK$@EKT EQUN@O@EKNQP KLM

livery permits; that Uber‟s affiliated vehicles have neither

NK$@EKT EQUN@O@EKNQP LCU B@AQU[ SQUX@NP\ KLM NRKN :TQU

X@PUQSUQPQLNQM NC @NP ECLPWXQUP NRKN @NP AQR@EBQP KUQ CSQUKN@LV

BK^OWBB[ @L ,CLLQEN@EWN2 +L KMM@N@CL1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ

NRKN :TQU RKP X@PUQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN @N ECXSB@QP ^@NR

,CLLQEN@EWN NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP ECLEQUL@LV

AQR@EBQ @LPSQEN@CL\ KLM NRKN :TQU RKP A@CBKNQM PWER BK^P KLM

UQVWBKN@CLP ECLEQUL@LV AQR@EBQ MU@AQUP1 @LPWUKLEQ1 MU@AQU

PKOQN[1 KLN@#M@PEU@X@LKN@CL1 KLM OKUQ B@X@NP2

Because the plaintiffs‟ allegations of violations of

NUKLPSCUNKN@CL BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP KUQ TKPQM CL NRQ@U

@LNQUSUQNKN@CL NRKN :TQU#KOO@B@KNQM EKUP KUQ NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[

AQR@EBQP WLMQU ,CLLQEN@EWN PNKNWNQP KLM NRKN ,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P

KLM UQVWBKN@CLP VCAQUL@LV NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ ECXSKL@QP KSSB[ NC

:TQU1 NRQ E@UEWXPNKLEQP RQUQ SUQPQLN NRQ PKXQ @PPWQ KP @L =@KB /

,KU ## LKXQB[1 ^RQNRQU NRQUQ Q$@PNP K EKWPQ CO KEN@CL WLMQU NRQ

;KLRKX /EN OCU XKb@LV K OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV PNKNQXQLN ^RQL NRQ

falsity or misrepresentation hinges on a regulatory authority‟s

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (- 3C &-


11/30

!!

KLN@E@SKNQM PNKNWNCU[ @LNQUSUQNKN@CL2D .RQUQOCUQ1 NRQ ECWUN

ECLEBWMQP NRKN NC NRQ Q$NQLN NRKN ,CWLN + @P TKPQM CL

KBBQVKN@CLP NRKN NRQ MQOQLMKLN X@PUQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN

@N @P ECXSB[@LV ^@NR ,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP VCAQUL@LV

NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[ AQR@EBQP1 ,CWLN + @P TQ@LV M@PX@PPQM2

:" ;/0-3


12/30

!>

NRQUQ KUQ LWXQUCWP Q$KXSBQP CO NR@P KBBQVQM X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL

KLM NRKN :TQU RKP KMX@NNQM NRKN CSQUKNCUP CO NRQ@U AQR@EBQP KUQ

not “partners” by referring to them as “third#SKUN[

transportation providers.” /P PWSSCUN1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP SC@LN NC

NRQ KBBQVKN@CLP SBQKMQM @L SKUKVUKSRP G>1 Da1 a?1 a>1 a_ KLM FF

CO NRQ KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN2 +L SKUKVUKSR G>1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ

SBQKMQM NRKN :TQU @LMWEQP Uber‟s drivers (“partners”) to use

Uber‟s computerized dispatching KLM EUQM@N EKUM T@BB@LV P[PNQX\

SKUKVUKSR Da XKbQP KL KBBQVKN@CL KTCWN K PNKNQXQLN ECLEQUL@LV

Uber‟s selection of “partners” that KSSQKUP NC SUQMKNQ Uber‟s

SUQPQLEQ @L ,CLLQEN@EWN\ @L SKUKVUKSR a?1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ

SBQKMQM that Uber “partners” with legally operating Connecticut

NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ MU@AQUP\ @L SKUKVUKSR a>1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ

SBQKMQM that Uber‟s “partners” are a fleet of gypsy taxicabs; @L

SKUKVUKSR a_1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ SBQKMQM NRKN :TQU OKBPQB[

suggests to customers that it “partners” with lawfully operating

NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ ECXSKL@QP\ KLM SKUKVUKSR FF ECLNK@LP K

ECLEBWPCU[ KBBQVKN@CL NRKN :TQU OKTU@EKNQM K LCLQ$@PNQLN

“partnership” with legally owned and operated taxicab and livery

ECXSKL@QP2Y

-C^QAQU1 QAQL KEEQSN@LV NRQPQ KBBQVKN@CLP @L NRQ KXQLMQM

ECXSBK@LN KP NUWQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN SBQKMQM1 LCU EKL @N

UQKPCLKTB[ be inferred, what it means to be an Uber “partner”

Y 8KUKVUKSR FF @P LCN @LECUSCUKNQM @LNC ,CWLN +2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (9 3C &-


13/30

!G

KLM ^R[ NRQ UQSUQPQLNKN@CL @P OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV2a 3@X@BKUB[1

Uber‟s use of the term “third#party transportation providers,”

KP SBQKMQM @L SKUKVUKSR D`1 KBPC MCQP LCN PWSSCUN KL @LOQUQLEQ

NRKN “partner” was a false or misleading representation.

As to Uber‟s representation that it operates legally, the

SBK@LN@OOP KPPQUN NRKN @N @P K X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL CL NRQ NRQCU[

NRKN :TQU XWPN CSQUKNQ @L ECXSB@KLEQ ^@NR ,CLLQEN@EWN NK$@EKT

KLM B@AQU[ AQR@EBQ BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP2 :LMQU =@KB / ,KU1 NR@P

KBBQVQM X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL @P LCN KL KEN@CLKTBQ EBK@X WLMQU NRQ

;KLRKX /EN2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC KPPQUN NRKN NRQ[ RKAQ SBQKMQM NRKN :TQU

markets its insurance coverage to consumers and that Uber‟s

UQSUQPQLNKN@CLP KTCWN @NP @LPWUKLEQ KUQ OKBPQ2 /P PWSSCUN1 NRQ

SBK@LN@OOP SC@LN NC NRQ KBBQVKN@CLP @L SKUKVUKSRP D>1 DD NC Da1

Y`1 KLM aD NC aa2 +L SKUKVUKSR D>1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM

XQUQB[ NRKN :TQU MCQP LCN UQVWBKUB[ UQERQEb @LPWUKLEQ1 TWN NRQ

SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU RKP UQSUQPQLNQM NC

EWPNCXQUP NRKN @N UQVWBKUB[ UQERQEbP @LPWUKLEQ2 'KNRQU1 NRQ

KBBQVKN@CL @P NRKN “Uber tells its customers it inspects these

vehicles . . . .” (Am. Compl., ¶ 42.) In paragraphs 44 and 45,

NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ SBQKMQM NRKN :TQU RKP UQSUQPQLNQM NRKN

KL[CLQ ^@NR KL[ ECXXQUE@KB B@EQLPQ KLM KL[ ECXXQUE@KB KWNC

a It appears that the plaintiffs use “partner” to mean two different things:

H!I K MU@AQU HPQQ /X2 ,CXSB21 i `I CU H>I KL KPPCE@KN@CL ^@NR NK$@EKT KLM

B@AQU[ AQR@EBQ MU@AQUP HPQQ @M21 i a?I2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (& 3C &-


14/30

!D

@LPWUKLEQ EKL MU@AQ KL :TQU#KOO@B@KNQM TBKEb EKU CU 3:4 @L

,CLLQEN@EWN KLM NRKN KL[CLQ ^@NR K SQUPCLKB B@EQLPQ KLM SQUPCLKB

KWNC @LPWUKLEQ EKL MU@AQ KL :TQU0 AQR@EBQ2 +L NRQ PKXQ

SKUKVUKSRP1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC RKAQ SBQKMQM NRKN @N @P LQKUB[

impossible to collect on Uber‟s liability insurance and that the

,CLLQEN@EWN +LPWUKLEQ =QSKUNXQLN @PPWQM K ECLPWXQU KBQUN PNKN@LV

that Uber‟s drivers may not be covered by NRQ@U SQUPCLKB

KWNCXCT@BQ @LPWUKLEQ2 -C^QAQU1 NRQ KBBQVKN@CL @L NRQ KXQLMQM

ECXSBK@LN KSSQKUP XQUQB[ NC TQ that Uber represented that “all

NRKN @P UQ]W@UQM NC CSQUKNQ an UberX vehicle is „a personal

license and personal auto insurance.‟” (Am. Compl., ¶ DD

HQXSRKP@P KMMQMI2I .RQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU

represented to customers that Uber‟s drivers are covered by

NRQ@U ECXXQUE@KB CU SQUPCLKB @LPWUKLEQ1 KLM NRQ ECLPWXQU KBQUN

MCQP LCN PWSSCUN KL @LOQUQLEQ2 ;@bQ^@PQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ

LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU XKMQ K UQSUQPQLNKN@CL NC EWPNCXQUP

ECLEQUL@LV @NP B@KT@B@N[ @LPWUKLEQ2F +L SKUKVUKSRP aD KLM aY1

NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU XKMQ KL[

UQSUQPQLNKN@CL ECLEQUL@LV @LPWUKLEQ ECAQUKVQ2 +L SKUKVUKSR aa1

the plaintiffs‟ allegation that the defendant made a

X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL KSSQKUP NC TQ TKPQM CL NRQ ECLNQLN@CL NRKN

,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP ECLEQUL@LV NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[

vehicles apply to Uber. To the extent that the plaintiffs‟

F .RQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM NRKN ;[ON1 +LE21 LCN :TQU1 COOQUP K l! X@BB@CL

SQU#@LE@MQLN @LPWUKLEQ SCB@E[2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ () 3C &-


15/30

!Y

KBBQVKN@CL @P TKPQM CL NRKN NRQCU[1 NRQ KBBQVQM

X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL @P LCN KEN@CLKTBQ WLMQU =@KB / ,KU2

As to Uber‟s alleged misrepresentation about safety, the

SBK@LN@OOP SC@LN NC NRQ KBBQVKN@CLP @L SKUKVUKSRP D>1 DF KLM D`2

+L SKUKVUKSR D>1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM XQUQB[ NRKN NRQ

MQOQLMKLN NCBM @NP EWPNCXQUP NRKN @N @LPSQENP @NP AQR@EBQP1 TWN

“upon information and belief, Uber only superficially inspects

NRQPQ AQR@EBQP KLM ERQEbP UQV@PNUKN@CL KLM @LOCUXKN@CL ^RQL NRQ

owner first signs up.” (Am. Compl., ¶ 42.) This paragraph does

not support an inference that Uber‟s representation was false or

X@PBQKM@LV TQEKWPQ NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU RKP

UQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN @N UQERQEbP AQR@EBQP2 .RQ

SBK@LN@OOP KBPC KSSQKU NC KPPQUN NRKN @L SKUKVUKSR D>1 NRQ[ RKAQ

KBBQVQM NRKN NRQ MQOQLMKLN RKP X@PUQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN

:TQU ECLMWENP Q$NQLP@AQ EU@X@LKB TKEbVUCWLM ERQEbP KLM MU@A@LV

R@PNCU@QP1 TWN NRQUQ @P LC PWER KBBQVKN@CL @L SKUKVUKSR D>2 +L

SKUKVUKSR DF1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM XQUQB[ NRKN :TQU RKP

EBK@XQM NRKN @O K MU@AQU M@SP TQBC^ K EQUNK@L PNKU UKN@LV1 @N

will “no longer do business with” him or her. (Am. Compl.,

i DF2I .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC RKAQ KBBQVQM that “every driver

UQEQ@AQP K O@AQ PNKU UKN@LV P@XSB[ OCU P@VL@LV WS ^@NR

Uber . . . [and] a driver only drops below a „Five Star‟ rating

@O M@PPKN@PO@QM EWPNCXQUP NKbQ NRQ NUCWTBQ NC SCPN LQVKN@AQ

UQA@Q^P1 eTWNf :TQU ECLN@LWQP NC WPQ MU@AQUP QAQL KONQU NRQ[

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (@ 3C &-


16/30

!a

have received multiple negative reviews.” (+M2I -C^QAQU1 NRQ

KBBQVKN@CL NRKN :TQU ECLN@LWQP NC WPQ MU@AQUP ^RC RKAQ UQEQ@AQM

XWBN@SBQ LQVKN@AQ UQA@Q^P MCQP LCN PWSSCUN KL @LOQUQLEQ NRKN NRQ

statement Uber will “no longer do business with” thesQ MU@AQUP

^KP OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV TQEKWPQ NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM

NRKN :TQU RKP UQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN @N ^@BB LC BCLVQU MC

TWP@LQPP ^@NR K MU@AQU ^RCPQ UKN@LV M@SP TQBC^ O@AQ PNKUP2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC KPPQUN NRKN NRQ[ RKAQ KBBQVQM @L

SKUKVUKSR D` NRKN NRQ ^K@AQU CO B@KT@B@N[ :TQU UQ]W@UQP KBB

O@UPN#N@XQ EWPNCXQUP NC Q$QEWNQ PRC^P that “Uber deceptively

requires consumers to waive Uber‟s legal responsibility for its

violations of its own representations.” (7QXCUKLMWX CO ;K^ @L

5SSCP@N@CL to Uber Technologies, Inc.‟s Motion to Dismiss, Doc.

No. 52 (“7QX2 @L 5SS2”)1 KN _2I Uber‟s waiver states, in

SQUN@LQLN SKUN1 NRKN :TQU

^@BB LCN KPPQPP NRQ PW@NKT@B@N[1 BQVKB@N[1 CU KT@B@N[

CO KL[ NR@UM SKUN[ NUKLPSCUNKN@CL SUCA@MQUP KLM [CW

Q$SUQPPB[ ^K@AQ KLM UQBQKPQ NRQ ECXSKL[ OUCX KL[ KLM

KBB B@KT@B@N[1 EBK@XP1 CU MKXKVQP KU@P@LV OUCX CU @L

KL[ ^K[ UQBKNQM NC NRQ NR@UM SKUN[ NUKLPSCUNKN@CL

SUCA@MQU2 .RQ ECXSKL[ ^@BB LCN TQ K SKUN[ NC

M@PSWNQP1 LQVCN@KN@CLP CO M@PSWNQP1 TQN^QQL [CW KLM

PWER NR@UM SKUN[ SUCA@MQUP2

H/X2 ,CXSB21 i D`2I -C^QAQU1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN SBQKMQM

KL[ KBBQVKN@CL NRKN PWVVQPNP NRKN :TQU WPQM MQEQSN@CL NC EKWPQ

EWPNCXQUP NC Q$QEWNQ @NP ^K@AQU2 +L KMM@N@CL1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP

RKAQ LCN KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU XKMQ KL[ UQSUQPQLNKN@CL ECLEQUL@LV

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (8 3C &-


17/30

!F

NRQ PKOQN[ CO @NP MU@AQUP PWER NRKN NRQ BKLVWKVQ @L NRQ ^K@AQU

^CWBM XKbQ NRQ UQSUQPQLNKN@CL OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP1 SC@LN@LV NC SKUKVUKSRP G?1 Y_1 Y`2@@@2M2

KLM a?2@1 KBPC KPPQUN NRKN NRQ[ RKAQ KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM NRKN

:TQU X@PUQSUQPQLNQM NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN @NP SU@E@LV @P P@XSBQ2 +L

SKUKVUKSR G?1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM XQUQB[ NRKN WP@LV

Uber‟s app, a EWPNCXQU EKL ERCCPQ K EKU RQ CU PRQ ^KLNP

“[d]epending on how much the user wants to spend and how many

cars in each price range are nearby . . . .” (Am. Compl., ¶

G?2I -C^QAQU1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN @MQLN@O@QM KL[

UQSUQPQLNKN@CL NRKN ^KP XKMQ T[ :TQU2 +L SKUKVUKSR Y_1 NRQ

plaintiffs have alleged that Uber‟s user agreement allows it to

use “surge” pricing when demand becomes “high” or “intense” KLM

NRKN “[t]he mechanism for determining [„surge‟ pricing] appears

KUT@NUKU[ KLM WLSUQM@ENKTBQ1 XKMQ PCBQB[ KN NRQ M@PEUQN@CL CO

[Uber].” -C^QAQU1 NRQPQ KBBQVKN@CLP MC LCN PWSSCUN KL @LOQUQLEQ

NRKN :TQU XKMQ K UQSUQPQLNKN@CL NC EWPNCXQUP NRKN @NP SU@E@LV @P

P@XSBQ CU PRC^ NRKN PCXQ UQSUQPQLNKN@CL @P OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV2

+L SKUKVUKSR Y`2@@@2M21 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM NRKN :TQU

MCQP LCN ECXSB[ ^@NR K NKU@OO CU UKNQ PERQMWBQ KSSUCAQM T[ NRQ

,CXX@PP@CLQU CO NRQ =74 OCU NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[ AQR@EBQP2 .C

the extent the plaintiffs‟ allegation of misrepresentation is

TKPQM CL K OK@BWUQ NC OCBBC^ K ,CXX@PP@CLQU KSSUCAQM NKU@OO CU

UKNQ PERQMWBQ1 PWER X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL @P LCN KEN@CLKTBQ WLMQU

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (. 3C &-


18/30

!_

=@KB / ,KU2 +L SKUKVUKSR a?2@1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ SBQKMQM NRKN

NRQ MQOQLMKLN A@CBKNQP PNKNQ UQVWBKN@CLP T[ ERKUV@LV K XKLMKNCU[

20% “gratuity” and a $1 fee. -C^QAQU1 NRQUQ @P LC M@PSWNQ NRKN

NRQ VUKNW@N[ CLB[ KSSB@QP NC :TQU./0+1 ^R@ER @P LCN KAK@BKTBQ @L

,CLLQEN@EWN2 +L KMM@N@CL1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN SBQKMQM

KBBQVKN@CLP PWOO@E@QLN NC PWSSCUN NRQ ECLEBWP@CL NRKN NRQUQ ^KP

K X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL1 WLB@bQ NRQ KBBQVKN@CLP @L (RUQN A2 :TQU

.QER21 +LE21 )C2 ,#!D#?!!G (7,1 >?!D *; DaD?!F?1 KN k! H)2=2

Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (“Plaintiff alleges that she was misled

into paying sums greater than the „metered fare‟ for taxi cab

U@MQP TKPQM upon Uber‟s misrepresentations that all of the

additional 20% charge over and above the „metered fare‟ was a

„gratuity.‟”)1 KLM @L 7KLdC A2 :TQU .QER21 +LE21 )C2 !G , >D?F1

>?!D *; GD`YD?!1 KN k> H)2=2 +BB2 jWB[ !D1 >?!DI HPNKN@LV NRKN

the plaintiff “allegQeMf NRKN :TQU MQEQSN@AQB[ UQSUQPQLNQM CL

its website that Uber taxis charge „standard taxi rates,‟ when,

@L OKEN1 U@MQUP ^QUQ ERKUVQM NRQ XQNQU OKUQ SBWP K >?m

„gratuity‟” and alleged that “the „gratuity‟ was actually split

TQNween the taxi‟s driver and UTQU”).

6KPQM CL NRQ OCUQVC@LV1 NC NRQ Q$NQLN NRKN ,CWLN + @P TKPQM

CL KBBQVQM X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CLP concerning “ridesharing,” “driver

partners,” “operating legally,” “insurance coverage,” “safety,”

and “pricing,” ,CWLN + @P TQ@LV M@PX@PPQM TQEKWPQ NRQ SBK@LN@OOP

RKAQ LCN KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM KL[ CO NRQPQ KBBQVQM

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (> 3C &-


19/30

!`

X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CLP2

F. +1234 ##5 -6789 )881G=64=13? @A !.(.+. B @@CAD6ED@ED)E

3QEN@CL !!>Y CO NRQ ;KLRKX /EN SUCA@MQP%

/L[ SQUPCL ^RC1 CL CU @L ECLLQEN@CL ^@NR KL[

VCCMP CU PQUA@EQP1 CU KL[ ECLNK@LQU OCU VCCMP1 WPQP @L

ECXXQUEQ KL[ ^CUM1 NQUX1 LKXQ1 P[XTCB1 CU MQA@EQ1 CU

KL[ ECXT@LKN@CL NRQUQCO1 CU KL[ OKBPQ MQP@VLKN@CL CO

CU@V@L1 OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV MQPEU@SN@CL CO OKEN1 CU

OKBPQ CU X@PBQKM@LV UQSUQPQLNKN@CL CO OKEN1

^R@ER 2 2 2 @P B@bQB[ NC EKWPQ ECLOWP@CL1 CU NC EKWPQ

X@PNKbQ1 CU NC MQEQ@AQ KP NC NRQ KOO@B@KN@CL1

ECLLQEN@CL1 CU KPPCE@KN@CL CO PWER SQUPCL ^@NR KLCNRQU

SQUPCL1 CU KP NC NRQ CU@V@L1 PSCLPCUPR@S1 CU KSSUCAKB

CO R@P CU RQU VCCMP1 PQUA@EQP1 CU ECXXQUE@KB

KEN@A@N@QP T[ KLCNRQU SQUPCL 2 2 2 PRKBB TQ B@KTBQ @L

K E@A@B KEN@CL T[ KL[ SQUPCL ^RC TQB@QAQP NRKN RQ CU

PRQ @P CU @P B@bQB[ NC TQ MKXKVQM T[ PWER KEN2

!Y :232,2 Z !!>YHKIH!IH/I2 I NRQ MQOQLMKLN WPQM

NRQ XKUb1 HGI @L ECXXQUEQ1 HDI @L ECLLQEN@CL ^@NR NRQ PKBQ 2 2 2

CU KMAQUN@P@LV CO VCCMP CU PQUA@EQP 2 2 2 ^@NRCWN NRQ

plaintiff‟s consent.” !#_?? ,CLNKENP1 +LE2 A2 *RQLW2ECX1 +LE21

D!D M ,@U2 >??YI H@LNQULKB ]WCNKN@CL XKUbP KLM

E@NKN@CL CX@NNQMI2

.RQ MQOQLMKLN ECLNQLMP NRKN NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ OK@BQM NC

KBBQVQ NRKN NRQ[ RKAQ UQECVL@dKTBQ NUKMQXKUbP2 .RQ SBK@LN@OOP

KPPQUN NRKN NRQ@U NUKMQXKUbP EKL TQ @LOQUUQM OUCX NRQ KXQLMQM

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ (D 3C &-


20/30

>?

ECXSBK@LN2 -C^QAQU1 LC KBBQVKN@CL @L NRQ KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN

relates to any plaintiff having “recognizable logos, designs and

ECBCU PERQXQP eNRKNf KSSQKU CL QKER CO NRQ AQR@EBQP MU@AQL T[

the authorized lessee drivers[.]” (7QX2 @L 5SS21 KN !Y2I *R@BQ

the plaintiffs have alleged that Uber “partners” with legally

CSQUKN@LV ,CLLQEN@EWN NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ MU@AQUP KLM NRKN NRQ

SBK@LN@OOP KUQ BKÔWBB[ CSQUKN@LV NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ ECXSKL@QP1_

NRQPQ KBBQVKN@CLP KUQ @LPWOO@E@QLN NC PWSSCUN KL @LOQUQLEQ NRKN

the plaintiffs‟ taxicabs and livery vehicles are associated with

KL[ UQECVL@dKTBQ XKUbP CU KPPCE@KNQM ^@NR AKB@M XKUbP QLN@NBQM

NC SUCNQEN@CL2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC KPPQUN NRKN @L 9QBBC^ &UCWS ;;, A2 :TQU

.QER21 +LE21 )C2 !> , FàF1 >?!D *; GGà?YY1 H)2=2 +BB2 jWB[ !?1

>?!DI1 NRQ ECWUN MQEB@LQM NC M@PX@PP OKBPQ KPPCE@KN@CL EBK@XP

TKPQM CL KUVWXQLNP P@X@BKU NC NRQ CLQP RQUQ2 -C^QAQU1 @L 9QBBC^

&UCWS ;;,1 NRQ ECWUN TKPQM1 @L SKUN1 @NP MQE@P@CL NC M@PX@PP K

plaintiff‟s false association claim against Uber on the same

UQKPCL PNKNQM KTCAQ ## namely, the plaintiff “d[id] not allege

NRKN @NP EKUP TQKU @NP NUKMQXKUb CU KL[ CNRQU BKLVWKVQ CU BCVC

NRKN ^CWBM @MQLN@O[ K B@XCWP@LQ KP TQ@LV C^LQM CU CSQUKNQM T[

[it].” +M2 KN kY2

.RQUQOCUQ1 ,CWLN ++ @P TQ@LV M@PX@PPQM2

_ 8BK@LN@OO .K$@EKTP KLM ;@AQU[ ,CWLE@B CO ,CLLQEN@EWN1 +LE2 @P LCN K NK$@EKT

CU B@AQU[ ECXSKL[2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9- 3C &-


21/30

>!

+. +12348 H 41 H## – H=1764=138 1I 4J9 *6GK9499< #3I7293G9:

63: +1


22/30

>>

Procedure 9(b).” ??DI2 +L KMM@N@CL

NC KBBQV@LV NRQ SKUN@EWBKU MQNK@BP CO OUKWM1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP XWPN

“provide some minimal factual basis for conclusory allegations

CO PE@QLNQU NRKN V@AQ U@PQ NC K PNUCLV @LOQUQLEQ CO OUKWMWBQLN

intent.” 8C^QUP A2 6U@N@PR 4@NK1 82;2,21 YF M

,@U2 !``YI2

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KSSQKU NC UQB[ CL NRQ PKXQ KBBQVQM

X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CLP NRKN OCUX NRQ TKPQP OCU NRQ@U ;KLRKX /EN

EBK@XP NC KPPQUN NRKN NRQ[ RKAQ KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM SUQM@EKNQ

ECXXWL@EKN@CLP2


23/30

>G

customers via Uber‟s PXKUN SRCLQ KSS2 .RQUQOCUQ1 ,CWLNP 41 4+

KLM 4++ KUQ TQ@LV M@PX@PPQM2

&. (4649 /6N +76=O8

!" =)%(*/)%+ %> $?2@A


PNKNQ K EBK@X WLMQU ,:.8/2 ,:.8/ SUCR@T@NP SQUPCLP OUCX

engaging in “unfair XQNRCMP CO ECXSQN@N@CL KLM WLOK@U CU

MQEQSN@AQ KENP CU SUKEN@EQP @L NRQ ECLMWEN CO KL[ NUKMQ CU

commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42#!!?T2 +L MQNQUX@L@LV ^RQNRQU

K SUKEN@EQ A@CBKNQP ,:.8/1 NRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN 3WSUQXQ ,CWUN @P

VW@MQM T[ NRQ EU@NQU@K PQN CWN @L NRQ I ^RQNRQU @N @P

@XXCUKB1 WLQNR@EKB1 CSSUQPP@AQ1 CU WLPEUWSWBCWP\ HGI^RQNRQU @N EKWPQP PWTPNKLN@KB @LcWU[ NC ECLPWXQUP1

ECXSQN@NCUP CU CNRQU TWP@LQPPSQUPCLP2

nWB@Eb A2 8KNUCLP 7WN2 +LP2 ,C21 >_F ,CLL2 GaF1 GF_ L2!! H>??_I

H@LNQULKB TUKEbQNP CX@NNQMI2` “/BB NRUQQ EU@NQU@K MC LCN LQQM NC

TQ PKN@PO@QM NC PWSSCUN K O@LM@LV CO WLOK@ULQPP2 / SUKEN@EQ XK[

TQ WLOK@U TQEKWPQ CO NRQ MQVUQQ NC ^R@ER @N XQQNP CLQ CO NRQ

` .RQ ,CLLQEN@EWN 3WSUQXQ ,CWUN RKP ]WQPN@CLQM NRQ ECLN@LWQM A@KT@B@N[ CO NRQ

E@VKUQNNQ UWBQ KLM ^RQNRQU NRQ UWBQ PRCWBM TQ KTKLMCLQM @L OKACU CO NRQ

“substantial injury test.” However, tRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN 3WSUQXQ ,CWUN XCPN

UQEQLNB[ MQEB@LQM NC KMMUQPP NRQ @PPWQ @L Artie‟s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford

1 L2!G H>?!YI1 RCBM@LV NRKN TQEKWPQ NRQ ,:.8/

EBK@X OK@BQM QAQL WLMQU NRQ XCUQ BQL@QLN E@VKUQNNQ UWBQ1 NRQ ECWUN ^@BB ^K@N

OCU NRQ BQV@PBKNWUQ NC EBKU@O[ @NP SCP@N@CL ^@NR UQPSQEN NC NRQ SUCSQU NQPN2

+L B@VRN CO NRQ RCBM@LV1 @N KSSQKUP NRKN NRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN 3WSUQXQ ,CWUN RKP

LCN [QN KTKLMCLQM NRQ E@VKUQNNQ UWBQ2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9& 3C &-


24/30

>D

EU@NQU@K CU TQEKWPQ NC K BQPPQU Q$NQLN @N XQQNP KBB NRUQQ.”

,RQPR@UQ 7CUNVKVQ 3QUA21 +LE2 A2 7CLNQP1 >>G ,CLL2 _?1 !?a

(1992). “Thus[,] a violation of CUTPA may be established b[

PRC^@LV Q@NRQU KL KENWKB MQEQSN@AQ SUKEN@EQ 2 2 2e1f CU K

practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” +M2

/P NC NRQ O@UPN SUCLV CO NRQ E@VKUQNNQ UWBQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP

have alleged that the defendant‟s conduct violates the public

SCB@E[ QPNKTB@PRQM T[ ,CLLQEN@EWN BK^P KLM UQVWBKN@CLP

SQUNK@L@LV NC NK$@EKTP KLM B@AQU[ AQR@EBQP2 H3QQ /X2 ,CXSB21

i _?2I /P PNKNQM KTCAQ1 NRQ ,CLLQEN@EWN =QSKUNXQLN CO

Transportation has been tasked with “(1) review[ing] how

QXQUV@LV NQERLCBCV@QP1 PWER KP PXKUNSRCLQ KSSB@EKN@CLP1

EWUUQLNB[ O@N @LNC NRQ UQVWBKNCU[ PERQXQ1 KLM H>I COOQUe@LVf

UQECXXQLMKN@CLP KP NC RC^ KLM @O PWER NQERLCBCV@QP KLM NRQ

businesses offering them should be regulated . . . .” Conn.

8WTB@E /EN )C2 !D#!``1 Z !` H>?!DI2 .RQUQOCUQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP

cannot show that the defendant‟s conduct violated an established

SWTB@E SCB@E[2

/BPC1 Nhe plaintiffs assert that the defendant‟s actions

violate “general concepts that serve to establish a broader

SWTB@E SCB@E[ OKACU@LV NRQ PKOQN[ CO NRQ SWTB@E KLM OK@U

competition . . . .” (Mem. in Opp., at 33.) However, the

SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN E@NQM KL[ ECXXCL BK^1 PNKNWNCU[1 CU CNRQU

QPNKTB@PRQM ECLEQSN CO WLOK@ULQPP NRKN PWSSCUNP NRQ@U KPPQUNQM

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9) 3C &-


25/30

>Y

public policy. Even assuming “a broader public policy favoring

the safety of the public and fair competition” exists, the

plaintiffs‟ allegations are insufficieLN1 OCU NRQ UQKPCLP PNKNQM

above, to show that defendant‟s actions violated such policy.

/P NC NRQ PQECLM SUCLV1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN SBQKMQM

KBBQVKN@CLP NRKN QPNKTB@PR that the defendant‟s actions are

“immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous” because the

SBK@LN@OOP XQUQB[ UQB[ WSCL NRQ KBBQVQM X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CLP

V@A@LV U@PQ NC NRQ@U ;KLRKX /EN EBK@XP1 KLM NRQ ECWUN RKP

ECLEBWMQM NRKN NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM NRQPQ

KBBQVQM X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CLP2

/P NC NRQ NR@UM SUCLV1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KBBQVQ NRKN NRQ

defendant‟s “unfair and deceptive acts and practices have caused

PWTPNKLN@KB @LcWU[ NC ECLPWXQUP KLM BK^OWBB[ CSQUKN@LV NK$@EKT

and livery companies[.]” (Am. Compl., ¶ 82.) “.RQ @LMQSQLMQLN

LKNWUQ CO NRQ ECLPWXQU @LcWU[ EU@NQU@CL MCQP LCN XQKL NRKN QAQU[

ECLPWXQU @LcWU[ @P BQVKBB[ „unfair2‟” 7E;KWVRB@L


26/30

>a

PWTPNKLN@KB @LcWU[1 NRQ[ RKAQ LCN SBQKMQM KL[ KBBQVKN@CL

ECLEQUL@LV NRQ KTPQLEQ CU SUQPQLEQ CO ECWLNQUAK@B@LV TQLQO@NP NC

ECLPWXQUP CU ECXSQN@N@CL CU ECLEQUL@LV ^RQNRQU NRQ @LcWU[ @P CLQ

ECLPWXQUP NRQXPQBAQP ECWBM LCN RKAQ UQKPCLKTB[ KAC@MQM2

.RQUQOCUQ1 NRQ ECWUN @P M@PX@PP@LV ,CWLN +++2

:" 2%3/)%94 B+/-3>-3-+,- .)/0 $%+/3*,/9*(

7-(*/)%+40)'4


KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKM K EBK@X OCU NCUN@CWP @LNQUOQUQLEQ ^@NR

ECLNUKENWKB UQBKN@CLPR@SP. “e+fL CUMQU NC UQECAQU OCU K EBK@X

CO NCUN@CWP @LNQUOQUQLEQ ^@NR TWP@LQPP Q$SQENKLE@QP1 NRQ

EBK@XKLN XWPN SBQKM KLM SUCAQ NRKN% H!I K TWP@LQPP UQBKN@CLPR@S

Q$@PNQM TQN^QQL NRQ SBK@LN@OO KLM KLCNRQU SKUN[\ >I NRQ

MQOQLMKLN @LNQLN@CLKBB[ @LNQUOQUQM ^@NR NRQ TWP@LQPP

UQBKN@CLPR@S ^R@BQ bLC^@LV CO NRQ UQBKN@CLPR@S\ KLM HGI KP K

UQPWBN CO NRQ @LNQUOQUQLEQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OO PWOOQUQM KENWKB BCPP2”

-@#-C .C^QU1 +LE2 A2 ,CX#.UCL@EP1 +LE21 >YY ,CLL2 >?1 G>#GG

H>???I2 .RQ ,CLLQEN@EWN 3WSUQXQ ,CWUN RKP PNKNQM NRKN

LCN QAQU[ KEN NRKN M@PNWUTP K ECLNUKEN CU TWP@LQPP

Q$SQENKLE[ @P KEN@CLKTBQ2


27/30

>F

CO NRQ MQOQLMKLN1 LCN @L NRQ PQLPQ CO @BB ^@BB1 TWN

@LNQLN@CLKB @LNQUOQUQLEQ ^@NRCWN cWPN@O@EKN@CL2

=KBQ[ A2 /QNLK ;@OQ J ,KP2 ,C21 >D` ,CLL2 Faa1 _?Y#?a H!``Ì

HE@NKN@CLP1 CU@V@LKB TUKEbQNP1 KLM @LNQULKB ]WCNKN@CL XKUbP

CX@NNQMI. “A claim is made out only when interference resulting

@L @LcWU[ NC KLCNRQU @P ÛCLVOWB T[ PCXQ XQKPWUQ TQ[CLM NRQ OKEN

of the interference itself.” 6BKbQ A2 ;QA[1 !`! ,CLL2 >YF1 >a>

H!`_GI HE@N@LV .CS 3QUA@EQ 6CM[ 3RCS1 +LE2 A2 /BBPNKNQ +LP2 ,C21

>G_ 5U2 >?!1 >?` H!`F_II H@LNQULKB TUKEbQNP CX@NNQMI2

-QUQ1 NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ LCN KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM NRKN

Uber‟s interference with the contractual relationships betwQQL

NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KLM NRQ@U NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ MU@AQUP KLM TQN^QQL

NRQ SBK@LN@OOP KLM EUQM@N EKUM SUCEQPP@LV ECXSKL@QP ^KP

NCUN@CWP2 /P NC NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[ MU@AQUP1 NRQ KBBQVKN@CLP @L

the amended complaint are that Uber induced the plaintiffs‟

MU@AQUP to “illegally substitute [Uber‟s] computerized

dispatching and credit card billing system for the [plaintiffs‟]

lawfully operated dispatching systems and billing systems”; that

Uber had a “full#N@BN EKXSK@VL NC ^CC NK$@EKT KLM B@AQU[

drivers”; that “Uber . . . „partners‟ with legally operating

Connecticut taxicab and livery drivers”; and that Uber

“conviLEQePf BKÔWBB[ CSQUKN@LV NK$@EKT MU@AQUP NC P@VL CL NC

NRQ@U PQUA@EQP KLM VQN XCUQ OKUQ#SK[@LV EWPNCXQUPe2f” (Am.

,CXSB21 ii G>1 GY1 a? KLM a`2I .RQPQ KBBQVKN@CLP MC LCN PWSSCUN

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9. 3C &-


28/30

>_

a reasonable inference that Uber “induced” the plaintiffs‟

drivers to “partner” with Uber through fraud, X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL1

@LN@X@MKN@CL CU XCBQPNKN@CL1 CU NRKN :TQU KENQM XKB@E@CWPB[2

,O2 .CS 3QUA@EQ 6CM[ 3RCS1 +LE21 >_G 5U2 KN >10 (“+L NRQ SUQPQLN

EKPQ1 .CS 3QUA@EQ SBQKMQM TCNR @XSUCSQU XCN@AQP KLM @XSUCSQU

XQKLP CO @LNQUOQUQLEQ2 +N KBBQVQM NRKN /BBPNKNQ PCWVRN NC KLM

M@M @LMWEQ .CS 3QUA@EQ‟P SKNUCLP LCN NC RKAQ .CS 3QUA@EQ UQSK@U

NRQ@U KWNCXCT@BQP1 XKb@LV OKBPQ PNKNQXQLNP KTCWN NRQ ]WKB@N[ CO

SBK@LN@OO‟P ^CUbXKLPR@S KLM NRUQKNP KTCWN ^@NRMUK^@LV @LPWUKLEQ

ECAQUKVQ CU PWTcQEN@LV NRQ PQNNBQXQLN CO EBK@XP NC SCPP@TBQ

KUT@NUKN@CL2”).

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP KBPC XKbQ K LWXTQU CO CNRQU KPPQUN@CLP @L

PWSSCUN CO NRQ@U ECLNQLN@CL NRKN Uber‟s @LNQUOQUQLEQ @P

NCUN@CWP2 -C^QAQU1 NRQPQ KPPQUN@CLP KUQ Q@NRQU KBBQVKN@CLP NRKN

KUQ BQVKB ECLEBWP@CLP CU KUQ LCN UQKPCLKTB[ @LOQUUQM OUCX NRQ

OKENWKB KBBQVKN@CLP @L NRQ KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN2

As to Uber‟s interference with credit card processing

companies, the plaintiffs assert that Uber‟s improper motive has

TQQL KMQ]WKNQB[ SBQKMQM TQEKWPQ NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBBQVQM NRKN

Uber “illegally bypass[QPf NRQ EUQM@N EKUM P[PNQXP @LPNKBBQM @L

Plaintiffs‟ authorized taxicabs and livery vehicles” and that

Uber acts with “the intent of inserting itself illegally into

the Connecticut taxicab/livery market[.]” (Mem. in Opp., at

26.) However, the plaintiffs‟ allegations are “naked assertions

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9> 3C &-


29/30

>`

devoid of further factual enhancement” to show that Uber‟s

ECLMWEN ^KP MCLQ XKB@E@CWPB[ CU NRKN :TQU WPQM OUKWM1

X@PUQSUQPQLNKN@CL1 @LN@X@MKN@CL CU XCBQPNKN@CL2 +]TKB1 YYa :232

KN aF_2

.RQUQOCUQ1 TQEKWPQ NRQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ OK@BQM NC SBQKM

OKENWKB KBBQVKN@CLP QPPQLN@KB NC KL KEN@CL OCU NCUN@CWP

@LNQUOQUQLEQ ^@NR ECLNUKENWKB UQBKN@CLPR@SP1 ,CWLN +4 @P TQ@LV

M@PX@PPQM2

%. *9P2984 41 )O93:

.RQ SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ UQ]WQPNQM @L NRQ@U XQXCUKLMWX NRKN NRQ[

TQ SQUX@NNQM NC KXQLM NRQ@U KBBQVKN@CLP2 :TQU UQ]WQPNP NRKN NRQ

M@PX@PPKB CO NRQ KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN TQ ^@NR SUQcWM@EQ TQEKWPQ NRQ

SBK@LN@OOP RKAQ KBUQKM[ KXQLMQM NRQ@U ECXSBK@LN CLEQ2 -C^QAQU1

this is the plaintiffs‟ first request to amend in response to a

XCN@CL NC M@PX@PP2 +L KMM@N@CL1 “[i]n the absence of KL[

KSSKUQLN CU MQEBKUQM UQKPCL # PWER KP WLMWQ MQBK[1 TKM OK@NR CU

M@BKNCU[ XCN@AQ CL NRQ SKUN CO NRQ eSBK@LN@OOPf1 UQSQKNQM

OK@BWUQ NC EWUQ MQO@E@QLE@QP T[ KXQLMXQLNP SUQA@CWPB[ KBBC^QM1

WLMWQ SUQcWM@EQ NC NRQ CSSCP@LV SKUN[ T[ A@UNWQ CO KBBC^KLEQ CO

NRQ KXQLMXQLN1 OWN@B@N[ CO KXQLMXQLN1 QNE2 # NRQ BQKAQ PCWVRN

should be . . . „freely given.‟” H!`a>I2 3WER UQKPCLP KSSQKU NC TQ KTPQLN RQUQ2

Therefore, the court is granting the plaintiffs‟ request

OCU BQKAQ NC KXQLM2

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ 9D 3C &-


30/30

#H. +,"+/!(#,"

Accordingly, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.‟s Motion to

=@PX@PP H=CE2 )C2 GFI @P RQUQT[ &'/).(=2 .RQ SBK@LN@OOP KUQ

V@AQL BQKAQ NC O@BQ K PQECLM KXQLMQM ECXSBK@LN ^@NR@L G? MK[P

OUCX NRQ MKNQ CO NR@P UWB@LV2

+N @P PC CUMQUQM2

3@VLQM NR@P !GNR MK[ CO /WVWPN >?!Y1 KN -KUNOCUM1

,CLLQEN@EWN2

gPg

/BA@L *2 .RCXSPCL

:L@NQM 3NKNQP =@PNU@EN jWMVQ

!"#$ &'()*+,*--.&&*/01 23+45$67 89 :;?(&?(@ A"B$ &- 3C &-

uber connecticut ruling

Documents