Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sephr | Hacker News Reader

I suspect that a successful small claims suit would also result in a ban from Uber.

Unfortunately I still use Uber occasionally, so I'd rather not risk getting banned.

This customer service just baffles me.

Why not just pay their cleaning bill and be done with it, instead of trying to deal with court and lose/ban the customer and all their future business?

Because people take advantage when the policy is "just pay out."

Not often.

Work in a small town sometime and realize the respect you get - people take advantage of your company out of vengeance more than anything else - which is why most people here would be happy to exploit any justification to lower their cable bill.

Uber's philosophy is to cast themselves as an abstract service that merely connects drivers with riders, and anything that goes on between them is not their problem. Any admission of culpability or recognizing that users are patronizing "Uber" and not "FungibleDriver23815" erodes that narrative, and pushes them into higher overhead territory (aka it's not "scalable").

Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber!

Someone is clearly not voting with their wallet. The question is, who else isn't?

Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work. This case is just one small example in their long and well-documented history of sociopathic behaviour, and they still are around and happily growing.

Some % of their customers did vote with their wallet, the Delete Uber campaign was measured to have a significant impact and it's most likely what motivated them to have a very large cleanup of their executives after all the scandals. Yes, still growing, but that changed their growing curve and gave larger marketshare to Lyft. https://www.vox.com/2017/11/8/16617798/uber-delete-uber-lyft... Customer activism can still have some impact at scale.

Why the OP did not decide to switch out of Uber after this incident also baffles me, but to each their own. Crazy how people will let a multi-billion dollar corporation do anything to them and will keep giving them money.

I did, but that probably $100 they have missed out on, while everyone else I know uses them more and more.

>Uber is the perfect proof that the "customers will vote with their wallets" argument doesn't work.

How is this not a perfect example of the "customer voting with their wallet"? Maybe its not the vote you or I would have made. Clearly the customer values continued access to the network more than buying new clothes once. That is a vote for Uber's shitty [;P] business practices.

Uber is customers voting with their wallets... because they're cheaper than Taxis! Here, we're simply facing the unfortunatey reality of network effects / moats (barriers to entry).

> Sounds like Uber won here: they didn't pay out, the customer didn't sue, and the customer was happy enough about shitty clothes with no redress that they are continuing to use the service. Job well done, Uber!

Also, free advertising and reputational damage!

I've literally never used Uber because of stuff like this, and I discourage others from using them also. I mostly drive myself, but I'm content to use regular taxis and occasionally Lyft.

I reinstall Uber for company-related travel because it's integrated with our billing app. As soon as the trip is over, the app is removed. It's really not that much trouble.

I suspect it’s not customer service making the call. Legal comes up with this agreement and says that it must be part of any such transaction, and that policy can’t be overridden.

Yep. Uber is more than one person or team. Competing priorities.

The customer service team's priority is maximizing customer satisfication.

The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability.

> The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability.

If that were literally true Uber wouldn't currently exist. They were knowingly breaking laws and arguably continue to do so.

Uber's lawyers are interested in advocating for Uber, period. In most organizations the legal department can and will be overridden when it's in the company's financial interests. Saying that something is non-negotiable is the oldest negotiating tactic in the book. If Uber refuses to bargain over a settlement it's because (a) you're not bargaining hard enough or (b) they're prepared to go to court. You can never know without forcing the issue.

The Anglo-American legal system, and to a lesser extent most other legal systems, principally evolved to adjudicate disputes among aristocrats and merchants. Neither group is shy about advocating for themselves. If they want the maximum benefit of the law, neither should regular individuals be shy.

It is true. The part that makes it consistent with Uber's flouting of the law is that there's another team above the legal team, and that team's job is to find ways to maximize income.

It's a function of priority: make money > minimize legal liability > satisfy customers.

And I am 100% sure the impetus was not from the legal team.

That was from the business strategy and distribution folks. And then legal does the best they can with what they have.

Point being.... Don't be surprised by unoptimal actions if they are local optimums for the people involved. Thus the overreaching contract for $100 incident.

This is not a sustainable mindset.

I think it's pretty reasonable. It forces people to ask if their relationship with Uber is worth a claim that they're making. If Uber doesn't add $100 of value to your life, then claim the $100.

This feels like the logic of an extortionist.

I'm more interested in what logic is than what it feels like.

I think it's the same logic I'd use if I sat in gum at a discount theater, and the owner responded with "I'll pay for your pants, but only if you never come back here. I can't implement a process that keeps you from sitting in gum. We don't have that budget, and you should have been fully aware of that by looking at how dumpy this place is. And if you can't take responsibility for sitting in gum yourself, then I don't want to see what else you will do that you try to hold me liable for." Then I'd have to decide if the discount theater was worth it or not.

If you get banned, just use someone else's account. I don't use Uber much, so I don't know if there are significant disadvantages to this, though I've heard of people using someone else's account (sharing accounts).

Couldn't you trivially make a new email account and then a new uber account as well?

You would need a new phone number as well. (And many services now block Google Voice and similar)

That's also pretty easy to get.

This might be of interest not only for a burner number but also as a cheap and secure mobile line to use as dedicated 2-FA where SMS is the required, and only, available method.

Ting (ting.com) offers mobile service for $6/mo/line. They sell SIM cards for $1 so buy a few, then you can always spin up a new line on-demand. They support TOTP/U2F 2-FA, toggling call/text/data service, block porting, multiple call forward options, device auth/deauth/activation/suspention, # port blocking, etc., competent friendly humans provide on-demand phone support, and unlimited hassle free referral bonuses (you get $50 for initial referral $25 for unlimited others, people you refer get $25).

I think you would have a lot of journalists eager to publicize that story if that was actually the case.

Who cares about being banned? Why would one continue to be a customer for a business that behaves this way? By the time you're at the point of suing a company or issuing a credit card chargeback, you've already burned the bridge and decided you never want to deal with the company again.

I've done a credit card chargeback about 3 times in my life, and in none of those cases did I ever worry, "Gosh, if these guys ban me, I'll never be able to give them my money again!"

I feel like this story and being able to tell it might also be more valuable than the crap you'd need to go to if you actually wanted them to pony up that 100$.

Also, declining the token payment leaves a lawsuit open down the line if more serious complications develop from the incident.

Why not use Lyft?

Stip no ban in your case.

Wouldn't they more logically react by paying off such a small suit?

Even if not I suggest you show some backbone and do it anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com