Uber's CEO Travis Kalanick was unsuccessful despite his move to dismiss the price-fixing lawsuit filed by an Uber customer. The price-fixing lawsuit will continue, according to a federal judge.
Kalanick was alleged of conspiring with Uber drivers, particularly, in New York in fixing the cost of rides through the company's algorithms, BBC reports. Based on the lawsuit filed in December, the Uber CEO constituted a price-fixing conspiracy that violates anti-trust laws. Uber customer Spencer Meyer of Connecticut filed the suit. However, Kalanick denied the allegations. He attempted to halt the case which was denounced by a federal judge at the US District Court, Southern District of New York.
"We disagree with this ruling," said Uber in a statement. "These claims are unwarranted and have no basis in fact. In just five years since its founding, Uber has increased competition, lowered prices, and improved service."
According to the plaintiff, he and other Uber passengers have no choice but to pay the high taxi rate during high volume days especially during New Year's Eve, BGR reported. On New Year's eve, Uber passengers have to pay up to $200 for a single ride. Uber's surge pricing reached to a point that it is nine times its regular rate.
The price-fixing lawsuit comes as another case faced by Uber. In 2014, a complaint was also received by the company in terms of their rate. Uber director Bill Gurley ended up explaining their business' pricing on their website.
"There is one key difference that materially increases the need for dynamic pricing in Uber's case. With hotels, airplanes, and rental cars, supply is relatively fixed," wrote Gurley, according to CS Monitor. "Uber has a problem these companies do not. At the exact time that riders want more availability - Friday and Saturday night, in a bad storm, on New Year's Eve - drivers would rather not be driving."
In the midst of price-fixing lawsuit filed against the CEO, the ridesharing company is also facing a class-action lawsuit filed by Uber drivers in California. The drivers argued that they must be considered as employees of Uber and not contractors.
