梅耶诉优步案如何证明优步和共享经济符合反垄断法

Nicholas Passaro
{"title":"梅耶诉优步案如何证明优步和共享经济符合反垄断法","authors":"Nicholas Passaro","doi":"10.36639/mbelr.7.2.how","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, Uber driver (and former Uber CEO) Travis Kalanick has been sued under antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kalanick and the other Uber drivers have engaged in a price fixing arrangement that violates §1 of the Sherman Act. The case, Meyer v. Uber (originally Meyer v. Kalanick), is still being litigated. This Comment will analyze each side’s potential arguments and will ultimately conclude that the court should find Uber drivers not guilty of a Sherman Act violation. This determination will be based on: the merits of the various arguments, how such a holding would fit within the history of antitrust law, and how it would set effective precedent for the future. Additionally, this Comment argues that Uber’s place in the sharing economy distinguishes it from previous antitrust violators the plaintiffs will likely analogize it to.","PeriodicalId":177599,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Meyer v. Uber Could Demonstrate That Uber and the Sharing Economy Fit into Antitrust Law\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Passaro\",\"doi\":\"10.36639/mbelr.7.2.how\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recently, Uber driver (and former Uber CEO) Travis Kalanick has been sued under antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kalanick and the other Uber drivers have engaged in a price fixing arrangement that violates §1 of the Sherman Act. The case, Meyer v. Uber (originally Meyer v. Kalanick), is still being litigated. This Comment will analyze each side’s potential arguments and will ultimately conclude that the court should find Uber drivers not guilty of a Sherman Act violation. This determination will be based on: the merits of the various arguments, how such a holding would fit within the history of antitrust law, and how it would set effective precedent for the future. Additionally, this Comment argues that Uber’s place in the sharing economy distinguishes it from previous antitrust violators the plaintiffs will likely analogize it to.\",\"PeriodicalId\":177599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36639/mbelr.7.2.how\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36639/mbelr.7.2.how","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

最近,优步司机(也是前首席执行官)特拉维斯·卡兰尼克因反垄断法被起诉。原告辩称,卡兰尼克和其他优步司机参与了一项价格操纵安排,违反了《谢尔曼法》(Sherman Act)第1条。梅耶诉优步案(最初是梅耶诉卡兰尼克案)仍在诉讼中。本评论将分析双方的潜在论点,并最终得出结论,法院应裁定优步司机违反《谢尔曼法》(Sherman Act)。这一决定将基于:各种论点的优点,这种控股如何符合反垄断法的历史,以及它将如何为未来树立有效的先例。此外,这篇评论认为,优步在共享经济中的地位使其有别于原告可能会将其类比为以往的反垄断违反者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Meyer v. Uber Could Demonstrate That Uber and the Sharing Economy Fit into Antitrust Law
Recently, Uber driver (and former Uber CEO) Travis Kalanick has been sued under antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kalanick and the other Uber drivers have engaged in a price fixing arrangement that violates §1 of the Sherman Act. The case, Meyer v. Uber (originally Meyer v. Kalanick), is still being litigated. This Comment will analyze each side’s potential arguments and will ultimately conclude that the court should find Uber drivers not guilty of a Sherman Act violation. This determination will be based on: the merits of the various arguments, how such a holding would fit within the history of antitrust law, and how it would set effective precedent for the future. Additionally, this Comment argues that Uber’s place in the sharing economy distinguishes it from previous antitrust violators the plaintiffs will likely analogize it to.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信