> Despite several email exchanges, Uber never agreed to reimburse her the extra money. But she disputed the charge with her credit card company and got back her $98. Uber then canceled her account.
Problem solved.
> If neither Uber nor the credit card issuers agree to reimburse the victims of fraud in Miami, it’s not clear if the dispute becomes an issue for the county or the state.
But I didn't read any evidence that a credit card issuer has denied the customer's dispute. In fact every (reasonable) case I've ever heard of the card issuer sides with the cardholder and not the merchant.
> But she disputed the charge with her credit card company and got back her $98. Uber then canceled her account.
The problem is then Uber canceled her account. So they assumed she was the one being fraudulent.
I guess she can try Lyft from now on, but then the same fraud could happen there and she'd be locked out of that app as well. Then back to taxis? Which may or may not be bad, as I noticed some taxi services started getting better after they were forced to compete with these ride sharing companies.
Why would a customer want to continue using a service whose driver fraudulently accused them of damaging property?
> I guess she can try Lyft from now on, but then the same fraud could happen there and she'd be locked out of that app as well. Then back to taxis? Which may or may not be bad, as I noticed some taxi services started getting better after they were forced to compete with these ride sharing companies.
The uncontroversial answer to your question is yes. If you find that Uber, Lyft, Yellow Cab, and every reasonable form of available public transportation have drivers who are all uniformly running scams and refuse you service upon CC disputes, you've probably got much bigger problems to worry about in this country.
edit: typo
Because Uber is an effective monopoly in certain markets given the convenience factor. It's why people still use their crappy internet provider or utility company.