1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`J. KEVIN MORRISON, NO. 160531
`JOSHUA D. WHITE, NO. 246164
`JASLEEN SINGH, NO. 315315
`ALTAIR LAW LLP
`465 California St., 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 988-9828
`Email: kmorrison@altairlaw.com
`Email: jwhite@altairlaw.com
`Email: jsingh@altairlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`WILLIAM J. MASON and KELLY A. MASON
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`07/10/2023
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: RONNIE OTERO
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`WILLIAM J. MASON and KELLY A. MASON,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` vs.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FRANCISCO
`BALLESTEROS MADAMBA, CHARLOTTE
`MARIE ELIASSON, and DOES 1 to 50,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. CGC-18-563924
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
`NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FURTHER
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`Date: August 3, 2023
`Time: 9:00 am
`Department: 301
`
`
`
`Complaint Filed: January 30, 2018
`Trial Date: August 28, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD.
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453,
`Plaintiffs hereby request this Court to take judicial notice of the following California Public Utilities
`Commission (P.U.C.) Decisions and Orders:
`1.
` P.U.C. Decision 13-09-045, dated September 19, 2013, titled “Decision Adopting
`Rules and Regulations to Protect Public Safety while Allowing New Entrants to the Transportation
`
`-1-
`PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Industry,” which on page 32, subsection k provides that:
`
`
`One year from the effective date of these rules and annually
`thereafter, each TNC shall submit to the Safety and Enforcement
`Division a verified report in electronic Excel or other spreadsheet
`format detailing the number of drivers that were found to have
`committed a violation and/or suspended, including a list of zero
`tolerance complaints and the outcome of the investigation into those
`complaints. Each TNC shall also provide a verified report, in
`electronic Excel or other spreadsheet format, of each accident or
`other incident that involved a TNC driver and was reported to the
`TNC, the cause of the incident, and the amount paid, if any, for
`compensation to any party in each incident. The verified report will
`contain information of the date of the incident, the time of the
`incident, and the amount that was paid by the driver’s insurance, the
`TNC’s insurance, or any other source. Also, the report will provide
`the total number of incidents during the year.
`
`A copy of this Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”.
`2.
`P.U.C. Decision 16-04-041, dated April 21, 2016, titled “Decision on Phase II Issues and
`Reserving Additional Issues for Resolution in Phase III,” which on page 52, subsection 3.5 provides:
`
`While it is true that California law requires that an SR1 report be
`filed after an incident, Rasier says that it does not receive a copy of
`the SR1 form that a driver must send to the DMV. Rasier goes on to
`say that its insurance company does not get these either.
`
`We will delete this requirement as it appears that as a matter of
`custom and practice that TNCs do not collect this form. It also
`appears that some drivers may not fill out SR1s. The SR1 may also
`be redundant to the incident information that this Commission has
`required all TNCs to track. We will continue to require each TNC
`to submit its incident reports as part of the annual reporting
`required by D.13-09-045. (Emphasis added)
`
`A copy of this Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.
`3.
`P.U.C. Decision 20-03-014, dated March 12, 2020, titled “Decision on Data
`Confidentiality Issues Track 3,” which on page 37, Order No. 1, provides:
`IT IS ORDERED that:
`1.
`Footnote 42 in Decision 13-09-045 is deleted. The
`Transportation Network Company annual reports will no longer be
`presumed to be confidential.
`
`
`-2-
`PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`A copy of this Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit C”.
`
`DATED: July 10, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALTAIR LAW LLP
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joshua D. White
`J. Kevin Morrison
`Jasleen Singh
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
`COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of Issuance 9/23/2013
`
`
`
`
`Decision 13-09-045 September 19, 2013
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Order Instituting Rulemaking on Regulations
`Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, and
`New Online-Enabled Transportation Services.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rulemaking 12-12-011
`(Filed December 20, 2012)
`
`
`DECISION ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO
`PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE ALLOWING NEW ENTRANTS
`TO THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`77192335
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`Title
`
`DECISION ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC
`SAFETY WHILE ALLOWING NEW ENTRANTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
`INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................................ 2
`Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
`1. Procedural History .................................................................................................. 4
`2. Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 7
`2.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ........................................................................ 8
`2.2. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 11
`2.2.1. Neither the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 nor Public
`Utilities Code Section 710 Exempts TNCs from State Jurisdiction ............. 12
`2.2.2. TNCs Transport Passengers for Compensation .................................... 18
`2.2.3. TNCs Operate on a Prearranged Basis ................................................... 20
`2.2.4. The Commission Has the Jurisdiction and the Duty to Establish
`Regulations Governing the Provision of TNC Services ................................. 21
`3. Safety ....................................................................................................................... 35
`3.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ...................................................................... 36
`3.2. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 39
`4. Ridesharing ............................................................................................................. 44
`4.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ...................................................................... 44
`4.2. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 48
`5. Transportation Access ........................................................................................... 52
`5.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ...................................................................... 52
`5.2. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 54
`6. Insurance ................................................................................................................. 56
`6.1. Comments on the Rulemaking ...................................................................... 57
`6.2. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 58
`7. Workshop Report................................................................................................... 59
`7.1. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 62
`8. Comments on Proposed Decision ....................................................................... 63
`9. Assignment of Proceeding ................................................................................... 64
`Findings of Fact ........................................................................................................... 64
`Conclusions of Law .................................................................................................... 70
`ORDER ............................................................................................................................. 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS
`TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE ALLOWING NEW ENTRANTS
`TO THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
`
`
`Summary
`
`This decision adopts rules and regulations for New Online Enabled
`
`Transportation Services, referred to hereafter as a Transportation Network
`
`Company1 (TNC), to ensure that public safety is not compromised by the
`
`operation of this new transportation business model. TNCs are not just Lyft,
`
`SideCar, InstantCab, and UberX.2 This Commission defines a TNC as an
`
`organization whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form,
`
`operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for
`
`compensation using an online-enabled application (app) or platform to connect
`
`passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.3 Among other
`
`
`1 In the Rulemaking, we referred to these companies as New Online-Enabled
`Transportation Services (NOETS). We are changing the acronym to Transportation
`Network Company (TNC) for ease of use.
`
`2 The Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division issued cease and desist letters
`and $20,000 citations against Uber, Lyft, and SideCar for operating without authority
`and other violations of state law. However, in 2013, the Safety and Enforcement
`Division entered into settlement agreements intended to ensure the public safety of
`both riders and drivers with Uber, Lyft, and SideCar, allowing the companies to operate
`while the Commission’s TNC rulemaking is underway.
`http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/transportation/Passengers/CarrierInvestigations/.
`
`3 There are eleven exemptions to the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act contained in
`Public Utilities Code § 5353. Our definition of a TNC does not in any way usurp those
`existing exemptions. For example, one of the exemptions is passenger vehicles carrying
`passengers on a non-commercial enterprise basis. This exception has been defined by
`the Commission to mean non-profit organizations. See D.91.-06-025 (“The term
`‘noncommercial enterprise basis’ in PU Code Section 5353(f) includes operations
`conducted on a not-for-profit, tax-exempt basis, as authorized by federal or state law.”).
`Another exemption is the rideshare exemption itself, which exempts: Transportation of
`
`
`Footnote continued on next page
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`requirements established in this decision, we require each TNC (not the
`
`
`
`
`
`individual drivers) to obtain a permit from the California Public Utilities
`
`Commission (Commission), require criminal background checks for each driver,
`
`establish a driver training program, implement a zero-tolerance policy on drugs
`
`and alcohol, and require insurance coverage as detailed below.
`
`This decision orders a second phase to this proceeding to review the
`
`Commission’s existing regulations over limousines and other charter-party
`
`carriers to ensure that the public safety rules are up to date, and that the rules are
`
`responsive to the needs of today’s transportation market. In addition, the second
`
`phase will consider the potential impact of any legislative changes that could
`
`affect our ability to regulate the TNC industry. When the second phase is
`
`complete, the Commission will initiate the Commission’s resolution process to
`
`update the General Order (GO) 115 and 157 series to include the new regulations
`
`relating to the charter-party carrier subclass of TNC.
`
`Finally, the Commission is aware that TNCs are a nascent industry.
`
`Innovation does not, however, alter the Commission’s obligation to protect
`
`public safety, especially where, as here, the core service being provided --
`
`passenger transportation on public roadways -- has safety impacts for third
`
`parties and property. The Commission is familiar with and confident in its
`
`ability to protect public safety in the face of rapid technological change.
`
`Consequently, while the Commission adopts these rules and regulations, it will
`
`
`persons between home and work locations or of persons having a common
`work-related trip purpose in a vehicle having a seating capacity of 15 passengers or less,
`including the driver, which are used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in
`Section 522 of the Vehicle Code, when the ridesharing is incidental to another purpose
`of the driver.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`also look for further guidance from the legislature should it decide that there is a
`
`
`
`
`
`need for legislation to provide guidance in regulating this new industry.
`
`1. Procedural History
`
`On December 20, 2012, the Commission opened this Rulemaking in order
`
`to determine whether and how TNC services arranged through online-enabled
`
`apps such as Uber, SideCar, and Lyft might affect public safety.4
`
`In the Order Instituting Rulemaking (Rulemaking), the Commission stated
`
`that:
`
`We initiate this proceeding to protect public safety and
`encourage innovators to use technology to improve the lives
`of Californians.5 The purpose of this Rulemaking is not to
`stifle innovation and the provision of new services that
`consumers want, but rather to assess public safety risks, and
`to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised in
`the operation of these business models. The Commission
`invites all interested parties to participate in this proceeding to
`ensure that regulation is not a hindrance, but continues to be
`the safety net that the public can rely on for its protection.6
`
`The Commission sought comment on issues including: how the
`
`Commission’s existing jurisdiction should be applied to businesses such as Uber,
`
`SideCar, and Lyft; the consumer protection and safety implications of these new
`
`
`4 The Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division issued cease and desist letters
`and $20,000 citations against Uber, Lyft, and SideCar for operating without authority
`and other violations of state law. However, in 2013, the Safety and Enforcement
`Division entered into settlement agreements intended to ensure the public safety of
`both riders and drivers with Uber, Lyft, and SideCar, allowing the companies to operate
`while the Commission’s TNC rulemaking is underway.
`http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/transportation/Passengers/CarrierInvestigations/.
`
`5 R.12-12-011, Rulemaking at 1.
`
`6 R.12-12-011, Rulemaking at 2.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`methods for arranging transportation services; whether and how the new
`
`
`
`
`
`transportation business models differ from longstanding forms of ridesharing;
`
`and the new transportation business models’ potential effect on insurance and
`
`transportation access.
`
`On January 28, 2013, opening comments were filed by: Willie L. Brown,
`
`Jr., Luxor Cab Company, Greater California Livery Association, San Francisco
`
`Airport Commission, International Association of Transportation Regulators,
`
`Uber Technologies, Personal Insurance Federation of California (PIFC), Center
`
`for Accessible Technology (CforAT), Zimride, TransForm, SideCar Technologies,
`
`San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Ed Healy, United Taxicab
`
`Workers, San Francisco Cab Drivers Association, Taxicab Limousine and
`
`Paratransit Association, and Taxicab Paratransit Association of California.
`
`On February 11, 2013, reply comments were filed by: Electronic Frontier
`
`Foundation, International Association of Transportation Regulators, United
`
`Taxicab Workers, Zimride, CforAT, Luxor Cab Company, San Francisco
`
`Municipal Transportation Agency, Transform, SideCar Technologies, Taxicab
`
`Paratransit Association of California, Ed Healy, Willie J. Brown, Jr., eRideshare,
`
`and San Francisco Cab Drivers Association.
`
`On February 15, 2013, the Commission held a Prehearing Conference in
`
`order to, inter alia, establish the service list, determine the positions of the parties,
`
`identify issues for inclusion in the April 2, 2013 Assigned Commissioner and
`
`Administrative Law Judge’s Scoping Memo and Ruling (Scoping Memo), and
`
`discuss the procedural schedule. Prehearing Conference Statements were filed
`
`by: United Taxicab Workers, International Association of Transportation
`
`Regulators, Willie J. Brown, Jr., Transform, Taxicab Paratransit Association of
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`California, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Zimride, Uber
`
`
`
`
`
`Technologies, CforAT, and San Francisco Airport Commission.
`
`On March 7, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a notice to
`
`the parties via e-mail, setting a workshop schedule and directing parties to file
`
`workshop statements answering specific questions about the following issues:
`
`TNC operations; jurisdiction; public safety; insurance; background checks;
`
`accessibility and equal access; and how Commission regulations may enhance or
`
`impede access to public roadways.
`
`On April 2, 2013, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ issued the Scoping
`
`Memo which established the scope and schedule of the Rulemaking, categorized
`
`the Rulemaking as quasi-legislative, and determined that hearings were not
`
`necessary.
`
`On April 3, 2013, workshop statements were filed by: Willie L. Brown, Jr.,
`
`The Utility Reform Network, San Francisco Cab Drivers Association, Zimride,
`
`SideCar Technologies, TransForm, San Francisco Airport Commission and
`
`San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Uber Technologies, Taxicab
`
`Paratransit Association of California, United Taxicab Workers, Luxor Cab
`
`Company, and CforAT.
`
`On April 10 and 11, 2013, the Commission held a workshop to facilitate
`
`dialogue among the parties on issues including: jurisdiction, public safety,
`
`accessibility, insurance, and proposed modifications for California statutes or
`
`Commission regulations. Two parties, TransForm and Taxicab Paratransit
`
`Association of California, took notes during the workshop and prepared a draft
`
`report summarizing all parties’ positions as articulated during the workshop.
`
`Parties reviewed the draft report to ensure that their positions were captured
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`correctly, and on May 17, 2013, TransForm and Taxicab Paratransit Association
`
`
`
`
`
`of California filed the final workshop report with the Commission.
`
`On April 25, 2013, CforAT filed a motion requesting an additional round of
`
`comments on the issues raised in the Scoping Memo. On May 10, 2013, the ALJ
`
`granted the motion, determining that opening comments were due on
`
`June 3, 2013 and reply comments were due on June 10, 2013. On July 17, 2013,
`
`the California Highway Patrol (CHP) filed its comments.7
`
`The purpose of this Rulemaking is not to stifle innovation and the
`
`provision of new services that consumers want, but rather to assess public safety
`
`risks, and to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised in the
`
`operation of these business models. The Commission invited all interested
`
`parties to participate in this proceeding to ensure that regulation is not a
`
`hindrance, but continues to be the safety net that the public can rely on for its
`
`protection.8
`
`2. Jurisdiction
`
`As noted in the Rulemaking,9 the Commission’s jurisdiction over
`
`charter-party carriers is clear. Nevertheless, new technology and innovation
`
`require that the Commission continually review its regulations and policies to
`
`ensure that the law and the Commission’s safety oversight reflect the current
`
`state of the industry and that these regulations are just and fair for all passenger
`
`carriers.
`
`
`7 R.12-12-011, Rulemaking at 1.
`
`8 R.12-12-011, Rulemaking at 2.
`
`9 R.12-12-011, Rulemaking at 2-3.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Commission sought comment on how the Commission’s existing
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to the California Constitution and the Public Utilities Code
`
`(PU Code) should be applied to businesses like Uber, Sidecar, and Lyft and the
`
`drivers employed or utilized by these or similar entities. The Commission also
`
`sought comment on whether any existing legislation should be modified or if
`
`new legislation should be enacted.
`
`2.1. Comments on the Rulemaking
`
`The parties that filed opening comments all addressed jurisdiction in
`
`varying degrees. The summaries of the positions of parties below capture all the
`
`positions that have been voiced in this Rulemaking on the subject of jurisdiction.
`
`The CHP asserts that TNCs fall under existing Commission jurisdiction,
`
`because the CHP views TNCs as for-hire passenger carriers.10 The CHP views a
`
`donation for transportation service equivalent to direct compensation, because
`
`the intent is to conduct a for-hire operation.11
`
`Luxor Cab asserts that these businesses should be regulated the same as all
`
`other passenger carriers. Furthermore, it asserts that the presence of new
`
`technology for summoning a car does not in any way change the nature of the
`
`business that they are engaged in.12
`
`Greater California Livery Association (GCLA) asserts that, based on their
`
`experience, these transportation technology companies should be subject to the
`
`same Commission regulation and enforcement as charter party carriers.13
`
`
`10 California Highway Patrol comments filed on 07/17/13 at 1-2.
`
`11 California Highway Patrol comments filed on 07/17/13 at 1.
`
`12 Luxor Cab Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 1.
`
`13 GCLA Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 2.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Uber suggests that the Commission does not currently have jurisdiction
`
`over Uber because Uber is not a charter-party carrier within the meaning of
`
`PU Code § 5351 et seq. Further, Uber advocates against extending the
`
`Commission’s jurisdiction to companies like Uber because: 1) no public policy or
`
`public interest is advanced by such an extension of the law; 2) the Legislature has
`
`recently enacted new legislation exempting Internet Protocol-enabled
`
`(IP-enabled) services from regulation by the Commission; and 3) extending
`
`Commission regulation to Uber would conflict with Federal and State policies
`
`promoting further development of, and innovation in, information services
`
`provided over the Internet by prohibiting regulation of information services
`
`providers.14
`
`TransForm acknowledges that the Commission has jurisdiction over
`
`charter-party carriers not meeting the statutory exemptions for taxicabs and
`
`work-related ridesharing, and has exercised this jurisdiction to ensure consumer
`
`protection and safety for traditional chartered transportation services.15
`
`TransForm further asserts that the Commission should exercise its jurisdiction
`
`carefully so that it is applied in a way that allows growth of technology-enabled
`
`ridesharing services rather than eliminating an innovative tool to help address
`
`transportation access and climate change. The Commission should recommend
`
`to the legislature any necessary modifications to existing statutory exemptions to
`
`create a coherent regulatory framework that allows for ridesharing services to
`
`grow, while ensuring that consumer protection and safety is addressed. At the
`
`same time it is important for high-volume services to consult and coordinate
`
`14 Uber Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 5.
`
`15 TransForm Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 2.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`with local cities, counties, and public transit agencies to avoid potential
`
`
`
`
`
`impacts.16
`
`The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (SFMTA) says state
`
`law defines a charter-party carrier as any “person engaged in the transportation
`
`of persons by motor vehicle for compensation, whether in common or contract
`
`carriage, over any public highway in this state.”17 Drivers affiliated with
`
`businesses like Lyft and Sidecar drive passengers to destinations of their choice
`
`in exchange for payment. These businesses collect payments from passengers,
`
`share revenue with the drivers, and manage the exchange of information
`
`between passengers and drivers to facilitate interactions and commerce between
`
`drivers and passengers. SFMTA goes on to say that although certain
`
`transportation providers that would otherwise meet the definition of a
`
`“charter-party carrier” are exempted by statute from the Commission’s
`
`regulatory oversight, services like Lyft and SideCar do not fall within any of
`
`these exemptions.18
`
`SideCar asserts that it is neither a charter-party carrier nor a transportation
`
`service, but rather it is a technology platform that facilitates exempt ridesharing
`
`and, to that extent, should be exempt from Commission jurisdiction under
`
`PU Code § 5353(f) and (h).19
`
`
`16 TransForm Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 4.
`
`17 SFMTA Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 2, citing PU Code § 5360.
`
`18 SFMTA Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 2.
`
`19 SideCar Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 9.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lyft asserts that the Commission should solely focus on regulation
`
`necessary to fulfill its responsibility for public safety.20 Lyft cautions the
`
`Commission to not force-fit existing regulations onto such an emerging industry.
`
`International Association of Transportation Regulators (IATR)
`
`recommends that the Commission should conduct further investigation to
`
`determine whether TNCs operate without a profit. IATR believes that
`
`companies that operate for-profit, and that use on-line apps that directly connect
`
`passengers to drivers, clearly fall under the Commission’s definition of a
`
`charter-party carrier, and should be subject to all the existing regulations.21
`
`Taxicab Paratransit Association of California asserts that TNCs operate as
`
`on demand services and therefore fail to comply with the legal requirements for
`
`operation as a Transportation Charter Party (TCP).22
`
`2.2. Discussion
`
`California law currently recognizes and regulates three modes of
`
`passenger transportation for compensation: taxi services, regulated by cities
`
`and/or counties; and charter-party carrier services, and passenger-stage
`
`companies, regulated by the Commission. In recent years, the communications
`
`revolution in wireless service, smartphones, and on-line apps has further
`
`facilitated the development and adoption of passenger transportation for
`
`compensation to a point where passengers seeking rides can be readily
`
`connected with drivers willing to provide rides in private vehicles. This
`
`
`20 Zimride (Lyft) Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 4.
`
`21 IATR Opening Comments filed on 01/28/13 at 3.
`
`22 TPAC Opening Comments filed on 02/04/13 at 5. The term TCP is defined and
`discussed, infra, in this Decision.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`development in passenger transportation for compensation, referred to in this
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding as TNCs and associated with companies including UberX, Lyft, and
`
`Sidecar, does not fit neatly into the conventional understandings of either taxis or
`
`limousines, but that does not mean that this Commission’s responsibility to
`
`public safety in the transportation industry should be ignored and/or left for
`
`individual companies or the market place to control.
`
`2.2.1. Neither the Federal Telecommunications Act of
`1996 nor Public Utilities Code Section 710
`Exempts TNCs from State Jurisdiction
`
`We reject Uber’s assertion that TNCs are nothing more than an application
`
`on smart phones, rather than part of the transportation industry. Uber is the
`
`means by which the transportation service is arranged, and performs essentially
`
`the same function as a limousine or shuttle company dispatch office.
`
`Accordingly, Uber is not exempt from the Commission’s jurisdiction over
`
`charter-party carriers. Nonetheless, because of the novelty of these new services,
`
`we will address Uber’s jurisdictional arguments here.
`
`As Uber notes in its comments, the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act23
`
`(FTA) distinguishes between “telecommunications” and “information services.”
`
`In so doing, Congress codified the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC)
`
`historical determination that “basic” services were to be treated differently from
`
`“enhanced” services. Uber seeks to convince the Commission further with a
`
`detailed discussion of a Vonage case, in which the FCC concluded that nomadic
`
`Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service is a purely interstate service, not
`
`subject to state jurisdiction. Uber recounts a California Court of Appeal case
`
`
`23 P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`involving actions brought against eBay, where the court held eBay immune from
`
`
`
`
`
`state causes of action.
`
`In addition, Uber notes passage of Senate Bill 1161 in 2011 codified §§ 239
`
`and 710 of the PU Code. Section 710 prohibits the Commission from “exercising
`
`any regulatory jurisdiction” over VoIP or IP-enabled services, subject to a
`
`delegation of federal authority, other express statutory authority, or exceptions
`
`contained in § 710.
`
`Uber’s citations are beside the point as none of the cited statutes or
`
`precedents prevent this Commission from regulating passenger transportation
`
`over public roadways. Specifically, we reject the argument that TNCs are simply
`
`providers of IP-enabled services and therefore exempt from our jurisdiction. We
`
`find this argument to be factually and legally flawed and, therefore, do not
`
`accept that the method by which information is communicated, or the
`
`transportation service arranged, changes the underlying nature of the
`
`transportation service being offered.
`
`First, the Commission is not attempting to enact rules that would impose
`
`regulations on the smart phone applications used to connect passengers with
`
`drivers. Instead, the Commission is promulgating rules that will govern the
`
`transportation service itself. Second, we do not believe that this Commission
`
`loses its jurisdiction over transportation services simply because a smart phone
`
`application is used to facilitate the transportation service. Nothing Uber has
`
`cited in California or federal law would mandate that result based on the facts
`
`here. Indeed Uber and Sidecar’s position would effectively obviate the
`
`Commission’s authority under PU Code § 5371.6(a) to prevent TCPs from
`
`operating illegally in order to protect the public and prevent unfair competition:
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`R.12-12-011 COM/MP1/avs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Legislature finds and declares that advertising and
`use of telephone service is essential for charter-party
`carriers of passengers to obtain bu