Uber Sues Over NYC's Ride-Hailing Cap

NEW YORK — Uber challenged New York City's landmark ride-hailing cap in a lawsuit Friday, arguing the freeze was implemented before officials bothered to study whether it was a good idea.

The massive company filed the complaint in Manhattan Supreme Court six months and a day after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the yearlong freeze on most new for-hire vehicles. The law also directed the Taxi and Limousine Commission to study how to best regulate the turbulent taxi industry.

The suit says de Blasio, a Democrat, has already signaled plans to keep the cap in place without even letting the study finish. The city overstepped its authority in passing the law, which is pre-empted by state lawmakers' efforts to implement congestion pricing, the complaint argues.

"The City Council’s new law guarantees a living wage for drivers, and the administration should not have blocked New Yorkers from taking advantage of it by imposing a cap," Uber spokesman Harry Hartfield said in a statement. "We agree that fighting congestion is a priority, which is why we support the state's vision for congestion pricing, the only evidence-based plan to reduce traffic and fund mass transit."

The first-in-the-nation freeze was part of a package of legislation aimed at stabilizing the taxi industry and lending a hand to struggling drivers. It also included a measure that paved the way new rules setting minimum pay for drivers — which are also being challenged in court.

A spokesman for de Blasio said Uber can't escape responsibility for the congestion that has plagued city streets.

"No legal challenge changes the fact that Uber made congestion on our roads worse and paid their drivers less than a living wage. The City’s new laws aim to change that," mayoral spokesman Seth Stein said in a statement.

Uber's lawsuit challenges the cap on several fronts. In addition to saying the city lacked the authority to implement it and that state law pre-empts it, the complaint argues the city unconstitutionally gave the TLC the power to permanently cap the number of cars, which should be left to the Council.

The suit also calls the cap an "anticompetitive arrangement" that restricts competition across the city, including "underserved areas." The number of Uber trips in Manhattan has grown at a faster rate than trips in the outer boroughs, a spokesperson for the company said.

"The City has not identified any benefits to competition that would result from restricting supply through a [for-hire vehicle] cap, and there are none," the complaint reads. "... Indeed, the City admits that it conducted no study prior to imposing the cap that would support a determination whether there are any benefits at all, even benefits unrelated to competition."

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, which pushed aggressively for the cap and other measures that accompanied it, slammed Uber for creating the city's congestion problem and driving down incomes for drivers.

"The company wants the right to add more and more cars to our streets without limit. But there is a very human cost to Uber's business practices," Bhairavi Desai, the group's executive director, said in a statement Friday.

Patch editor Kathleen Culliton contributed to this report.

(Lead image: In this Jan. 12, 2016 file photo, a ride share car displays Lyft and Uber stickers on its front windshield in downtown Los Angeles. AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)