> They don't have any fiduciary duty to give the customer the "best rate."
This, to me, is the critical point from the rider side.
If drivers were ever told something along the lines of "We, Uber, take an x% cut of the fare" then I can see a court deciding that drivers were defrauded by Uber when they misrepresented what the user paid.
Yes, and I seem to have been wrong about their relationship. @abduhl pointed out that their agreement with drivers does say that they merely take a % of fares.[0] That agreement, though, seems to have been before the implementation of upfront pricing, so I don't know if the Technology Services Agreement had been modified.
Yeah, okay. If A) that's true and B) Users paid a different amount than what Uber indicates to drivers was paid, it seems like drivers have an excellent case against Uber.
In which case we'll see Uber, a company that seems set on self-destruction at this point, pay a moderate settlement that's unlikely to be material compared to their funding.
This, to me, is the critical point from the rider side.
If drivers were ever told something along the lines of "We, Uber, take an x% cut of the fare" then I can see a court deciding that drivers were defrauded by Uber when they misrepresented what the user paid.