No it's not. He stated that he went to the regulator and complained and they dismissed it.

He actually received remedy from his credit card, which is not a regulatory requirement but rather the free market at work.

To be fair the T&LC, the investigators assigned to my case were very easy to work with and eager to help. Ultimately, the decision was up to a T&LC judge.

The process was pretty opaque. From what I gathered, every complainant is assigned an internal investigator/advocate. If the department determines that the complaint has merit, the complaint goes before a regulatory judge who has limited authority to issue fines, revoke licenses, etc.

The system almost worked.

Is there really an effective market in credit cards' willingness to refund? Aren't credit cards preferred mostly because regulation require them to refund the user in a lot of cases?

(Also, what's with that weird US regulation about a purchase having to be "within my home state or within 100 miles of my home" to be eligible for some credit card protections?)

The credit card market is a huge money maker and incredibly competitive. Have you seen the bonuses that US banks offer?

Yes, but I don't think they're competing on refund policy. It sure isn't what's in large print in the ads, and besides, the policy is mostly dictated to them by the credit card network (which isn't so competitive, it's largely a Visa/MC duopoly) and by legislation (which isn't at all competitive).

What? Of course they are. If I felt like my credit card didn't have my back on the chargeback policy, then I'd be far more likely to go to a competitor. It may not be what's on the ads, but you do realize customer retention is a huge part of competition, not just customer acquisition.

AmeRican Express certainly is.

Isn't the point of elahd's story that Uber/Lyft drivers are already regulated (particularly) extensively in NYC, but that the regulations (at least in that instance) are ineffective?

It sounds like the regulations could be enforced better, but it does not sound _that_ ineffective. Lyft was fined $1000.

Yeah, exactly. Parent comment is just someone who wants to believe that regulation is inherently good and productive.

I do, up to a point.

My experience with "sharing economy" taxi companies is that they really, truly, do not care about their drivers or their customers. It's a free for all where customers and drivers are basically left to sort things out themselves. IMO, this is where regulation comes in. In a city like New York, taxis are a part of our public infrastructure -- like buses, subways, etc. There should be baseline service guarantees set by transit regulators and adequate funding set aside for enforcement.

Furthermore, we're all on a hedonic treadmill here. The better these services get, the more intolerable we find the most minor of inconveniences. In the long run, everyone is winning in the free market: riders drivers and TNSs, even as our perception changes to notice new details that can be better.

> The better these services get

The trend seems to go the other way.

Years back small perks such as free bottled water and plugged-in cables to charge your phone while you ride were not that uncommon with drivers striving to get to the 5-star ratings.

Today getting a car that doesn't smell too much and has enough trunk space to transport two luggage bags (not a completely unreasonable expectation in case of an airport pick-up) is close to a miracle.

My pet theory is that early successful drivers quit after running their numbers (that included costs on maintenance, wear and tear, extra tires, insurance that suddenly tripled when the car went way above the typical 12,500 annual miles), the current drivers looking to milk the system for as much as possible before the music stops.

You're pretty naive to think that the regulators or taxi companies care about you or the drivers anymore than Uber does.

> It's a free for all where customers and drivers are basically left to sort things out themselves.

And yet it works _better_ than when things are regulated, and people seem to prefer it.

Day after day the people at these companies are working tirelessly to produce a system with as close to zero defects as possible. That's the only solution that cares about both riders and drivers in a two-sided market. Every conflict between those two sides can really only have solutions where one side wins and the other side loses.

Compare the number of defects per 100,000 rides in their solution to the one they replaced, and you'll quickly see that they care very much about both riders and drivers, because there isn't any revenue without both sides of the market.

Regulation causes high costs when it artificially constrains a market to a small number of cronies. That's the problem with regulation.

Regulation is great when it's unbiased and not just a way to enrich cronies, and does what it's designed to do. It just seems that it's extremely rare to see such effective regulation in the US. In European countries, it seems to be far more common.

Regulating behavior is completely different from regulating entry on market.

Besides, I fail to see how the GP wasn't victim of fraud. He may have better luck if he went to the police instead of a commercial regulator.

I'd be shocked if you went to NYPD with this and they _didn't_ respond by just redirecting you to the T&LC.

Not really. Let's say Taxi authority requires $20,000 bond from every driver to cover potential fines. Now you have drivers who can't afford to post the bond, you've reduced supply and increased prices.

Most any regulation is going to have some effect on supply, it's why they should always pass a cost/benefit analysis before implementation.

BALONEY. You'd have insurance companies putting up the bonds for the drivers in exchange for a very reasonable and minor fee. I had to put up a several thousand dollar bond when I became a notary public many years ago in another state (I'm no longer one) and it cost under $50 to have a bond posted by some insurance company.

You were the one who brought up bonds though. No need for that, you can enforce regulations just fine without them. Your TLC driver's license can function as a bond -- if you don't comply with rules, suspend it.

I meant directly regulating the supply. Some regulations are good, others are clearly bad. And telling "therefore shall only exist 2k taxis on this city" is clearly on the bad category.