List
Story ＞ NEWS ＞ Detail
[News] Current issues of Shared Economic Claims in U.S.
The recent status of lawsuits involving shared economies in the U.S. shows a rough picture of what legal problems are currently occurring in the shared economy-related industries, although there have been some cases terminated by consensus among the parties and many cases are still awaiting rulings. All of the rulings introduced below questioned whether the common economic service provider was a worker under the law. The service areas provided by the apps that were a problem for convenience will be classified and reviewed.
An important trigger that prompted discussions about the legal status of workers in the shared economy was a lawsuit filed by Uber and Lift drivers in California, U.S. In the Cotter v. Lyft ruling, Lyft drivers raised the issue of violating the California Labor Law against the company. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be workers, but the accused insisted they were independent contractors using the app and were not ruled by the defendant. The court was right that the core of the worker's judgment criteria is "right to control," but that it was not necessarily ruled by all details of the job, but that it could still be "a worker who is still controlled, even if a certain degree of freedom is guaranteed in the nature of the work done using the app." O'Connor v. contending on the basis of a similar factual relationship at a similar In the Uber case, as in the Lyft ruling, Uber drivers claimed to be workers against the company, in which case the court similarly refused to accept Uber's motion for summary judgment. Uber argued that it was not a 'technician' but a 'technician' who developed the app and was not a user of drivers, but the court said that Uber's 'main business' was a person's transport through a vehicle and therefore could not accept the claim that it was only a technology company. Uber decided that its survival depended entirely on drivers using the app and that it was sufficient for drivers to judge workerability to have right to control, as was the case with the Lyft ruling. The Uber case, like the Rift, ended with an April 2016 agreement. It should be noted, however, that although two lawsuits have been dropped in California, similar legal disputes may recur in other jurisdictions in the future, and that workers may be judged as workers at any time by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) or IRS, which govern the issue of misclassification as independent contractors.
In addition to car-sharing services, there was also an incident in which the service providers' workerability was questioned at a shared economy company that advocated acting house-to-house labor. The Argus v. Homejoy case was filed by those who had served Homejoy, a home repair service app, for violating the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), which was eventually dropped after Homejoy went bankrupt and stopped. Supporters of the shared economy blamed the bankruptcy on lawsuits filed by service providers, but the group has already experienced financial shortfalls and quality control problems, even before the lawsuit, and there has been no direct causal link between service providers' acknowledgment of workerism and their bankruptcy. The Zenalaj v. Handybook case was a misclassification-related dispute over those providing home cleaning services through smartphone apps. As with Homejoy, it was a dispute over service providers' violation of the FLSA minimum wage and hours of work, especially if it was possible for the service provider to file a suit to confirm worker status at a later date, even though the terms and conditions for service use contained a provision for arbitration in the event of a dispute. All workers have the right to raise a cow against users when they are violated their labor legal rights, a recent trend in which U.S. companies are limiting it to arbitration to evade legal responsibility has also been identified in the shared economic realm. The Bennet v. Washio case was a violation of labor laws in Washio, which provides laundry delivery services. In a similar incident, a lawsuit against the food delivery service Instacart is pending, and what's interesting is that the Instagram cart has decided to reclassify food buyers as workers. The company acknowledged that it actually requires skilled skills in selecting groceries, and that it is necessary to invest in training and training for them to continue to employ highly skilled workers.
The Rojas-Lozano v. Google case sought damages, claiming that the unpaid work done for Google without Google users noticing was equivalent to taking Google's illegal activities, or unjust gains. Google users are required to type in "captcha," a code consisting of several letters and numbers, to prove that they are "living humans," not an automatic spam-purpose subscription program, when they add to their blogs or subscribe to the site. But users didn't know, but Google has completed the granularity of the work it needs through this cab. It takes a few seconds for a single Google user to enter a CAPTCHA, but a significant amount of work is collected across the board for a large number of users to enter the CAPTCHA to complete. For the U.S. Common Law to fall under the law, the claimant must prove a certain loss, which was rejected on the grounds that the Cap Tea input was used for Google's targeted task, but that users could not see any loss. However, Capcha input is a form of crowdwork in that many people have performed fragmented work and collected it together to achieve the results, and there is no guarantee that similar forms of legal dispute will not occur in the future. The Otey v. Crowdflower case is a lawsuit against the workerability of those who carried out the crowdwork, a crowd-working platform that requires a large number of users to perform microtask, or highly granular tasks. For example, if the ultimate goal is to create a website, it is divided into fine-grained tasks such as coding and tagging, leaving them up to individual users around the world, and each of them collects the completed microtasks to complete the final results. Users sued Crowd Flower for violating the FLSA and Oregon Minimum Wage Act, while Crowd Flower claimed the service providers were independent contractors, not workers. The case was eventually settled through mediation, under which Crowdflower was to compensate for the difference between the actual wage and the minimum wage paid to the service provider. CEO Crowdflower's comments came as he was able to draw a relatively favorable agreement for service providers in the case. "We trick game players into doing useful things," he said in an interview video. Gamers will do about 10 minutes of actual work that the company can take advantage of without knowing. Then we give a virtual tractor (cyber money). It's good for both." These kinds of remarks can prove intentional violations of the minimum wage law, and result in punitive damages of three times.
The recent status of lawsuits involving shared economies in the U.S. shows a rough picture of what legal problems are currently occurring in the shared economy-related industries, although there have been some cases terminated by consensus among the parties and many cases are still awaiting rulings. All of the rulings introduced below questioned whether the common economic service provider was a worker under the law. The service areas provided by the apps that were a problem for convenience will be classified and reviewed.
An important trigger that prompted discussions about the legal status of workers in the shared economy was a lawsuit filed by Uber and Lift drivers in California, U.S. In the Cotter v. Lyft ruling, Lyft drivers raised the issue of violating the California Labor Law against the company. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be workers, but the accused insisted they were independent contractors using the app and were not ruled by the defendant. The court was right that the core of the worker's judgment criteria is "right to control," but that it was not necessarily ruled by all details of the job, but that it could still be "a worker who is still controlled, even if a certain degree of freedom is guaranteed in the nature of the work done using the app." O'Connor v. contending on the basis of a similar factual relationship at a similar In the Uber case, as in the Lyft ruling, Uber drivers claimed to be workers against the company, in which case the court similarly refused to accept Uber's motion for summary judgment. Uber argued that it was not a 'technician' but a 'technician' who developed the app and was not a user of drivers, but the court said that Uber's 'main business' was a person's transport through a vehicle and therefore could not accept the claim that it was only a technology company. Uber decided that its survival depended entirely on drivers using the app and that it was sufficient for drivers to judge workerability to have right to control, as was the case with the Lyft ruling. The Uber case, like the Rift, ended with an April 2016 agreement. It should be noted, however, that although two lawsuits have been dropped in California, similar legal disputes may recur in other jurisdictions in the future, and that workers may be judged as workers at any time by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) or IRS, which govern the issue of misclassification as independent contractors.
In addition to car-sharing services, there was also an incident in which the service providers' workerability was questioned at a shared economy company that advocated acting house-to-house labor. The Argus v. Homejoy case was filed by those who had served Homejoy, a home repair service app, for violating the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA), which was eventually dropped after Homejoy went bankrupt and stopped. Supporters of the shared economy blamed the bankruptcy on lawsuits filed by service providers, but the group has already experienced financial shortfalls and quality control problems, even before the lawsuit, and there has been no direct causal link between service providers' acknowledgment of workerism and their bankruptcy. The Zenalaj v. Handybook case was a misclassification-related dispute over those providing home cleaning services through smartphone apps. As with Homejoy, it was a dispute over service providers' violation of the FLSA minimum wage and hours of work, especially if it was possible for the service provider to file a suit to confirm worker status at a later date, even though the terms and conditions for service use contained a provision for arbitration in the event of a dispute. All workers have the right to raise a cow against users when they are violated their labor legal rights, a recent trend in which U.S. companies are limiting it to arbitration to evade legal responsibility has also been identified in the shared economic realm. The Bennet v. Washio case was a violation of labor laws in Washio, which provides laundry delivery services. In a similar incident, a lawsuit against the food delivery service Instacart is pending, and what's interesting is that the Instagram cart has decided to reclassify food buyers as workers. The company acknowledged that it actually requires skilled skills in selecting groceries, and that it is necessary to invest in training and training for them to continue to employ highly skilled workers.
The Rojas-Lozano v. Google case sought damages, claiming that the unpaid work done for Google without Google users noticing was equivalent to taking Google's illegal activities, or unjust gains. Google users are required to type in "captcha," a code consisting of several letters and numbers, to prove that they are "living humans," not an automatic spam-purpose subscription program, when they add to their blogs or subscribe to the site. But users didn't know, but Google has completed the granularity of the work it needs through this cab. It takes a few seconds for a single Google user to enter a CAPTCHA, but a significant amount of work is collected across the board for a large number of users to enter the CAPTCHA to complete. For the U.S. Common Law to fall under the law, the claimant must prove a certain loss, which was rejected on the grounds that the Cap Tea input was used for Google's targeted task, but that users could not see any loss. However, Capcha input is a form of crowdwork in that many people have performed fragmented work and collected it together to achieve the results, and there is no guarantee that similar forms of legal dispute will not occur in the future. The Otey v. Crowdflower case is a lawsuit against the workerability of those who carried out the crowdwork, a crowd-working platform that requires a large number of users to perform microtask, or highly granular tasks. For example, if the ultimate goal is to create a website, it is divided into fine-grained tasks such as coding and tagging, leaving them up to individual users around the world, and each of them collects the completed microtasks to complete the final results. Users sued Crowd Flower for violating the FLSA and Oregon Minimum Wage Act, while Crowd Flower claimed the service providers were independent contractors, not workers. The case was eventually settled through mediation, under which Crowdflower was to compensate for the difference between the actual wage and the minimum wage paid to the service provider. CEO Crowdflower's comments came as he was able to draw a relatively favorable agreement for service providers in the case. "We trick game players into doing useful things," he said in an interview video. Gamers will do about 10 minutes of actual work that the company can take advantage of without knowing. Then we give a virtual tractor (cyber money). It's good for both." These kinds of remarks can prove intentional violations of the minimum wage law, and result in punitive damages of three times.