United States: The Shared Economy

Last Updated: August 29 2017
Article by Barry Leigh Weissman and David E. Cannella


Before discussing how and whether the shared economy should be regulated and litigation involving the shared economy, it is important to first define what we mean by the "shared economy". Shared economy is an economic model in which consumers grant each other access to their underutilized assets. When people are asked to name a shared economy or peer-to-peer company the most popular responses are Uber and Airbnb and, in the insurance industry, the new company Lemonade. However, are these really shared economy entities? Could it be that they actually are just the result of the advances in information technology? Without the advances in computer technology the shared economy would not exist. In fact, Uber defines itself not as a peer-to-peer or shared economy but as a "... technology company that has developed an app that connects users (riders) with third party transportation providers." See About Uber, Uber (last visited April 25, 2017). Basically, these business are optimizing the resources which the consumer can use for services that are already available. Another term that is becoming popular to define these types of services is collaborative consumption, that is the sharing of goods and services through the use of the increases in computer technology via the use of apps and the internet. Juho Hamari et al., The Sharing Economy: Why people Participate in Collaborative Consumption, 67 J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2047-2059 (2016). In this article, we will use the term collaborative consumption ("CC") since we believe it to be not only more appropriate, but also because it encompasses peer-to-peer and shared economy.


Since we are talking about innovative methods of providing services, the question becomes, how and whether these methodologies should be regulated. For instance, the traditional methods of regulation can be divided into at least two (2) major segments, commercial and individual consumers. However, CC blurs the lines between these two (2) segments. Is the Uber driver the same as a commercial taxi driver and therefore must comply with the same regulations as a commercial taxi driver? Is the passenger a "commercial passenger" as the individual would be in a taxi and protected by the same existing laws that protects a "commercial passenger" in a taxi? Should the individual who rents a room or their whole house through Airbnb be regulated and pay the same taxes as those imposed upon a hotel and conform to the rules regulating the traditional hospitality industry? And is the individual who stays at the Airbnb rental protected by the same regulations and laws as someone staying at a hotel? The answers to these questions are still not clear and vary by jurisdiction. What is clear is that CC is raising issues of what rules apply to these transactions and how existing rules should or could be applied.


An increasingly popular notion is that the most effective form of regulation of CC is self-regulation. Urs Gasser, The Sharing Economy: Disruptive Effects on Regulation and Paths Forward, Swiss Re Institute (June 6, 2016). The rationale behind self-regulation is based upon the same theories used for the regulation of professions, such as the legal profession. Ray Brescia, How to Regulate the Sharing Economy? Look to the Law Governing Lawyers, The Huffington Post (Feb. 10, 2016, updated Feb. 10, 2017). The basic theories for self-regulation fall into the following:

  • The CC entities have the real incentives to self-regulate, since their success is based upon consumer trust, and consumers will not use their services if they are not satisfied. In fact, 64% of consumers surveyed by PWC for its April 2015 Consumer Intelligence Series, pwc.com/CISsharing, stated self-regulation is more important than government regulation. In addition, 69% stated they would not "trust sharing economy companies" unless the company was recommended by someone they actually trusted. Bottom line is that CC entities essentially profit by aiding in the transaction between the seller and buyer, and thus have the motivation to self-regulate. A lack of consumer trust can obstruct transactions, directly reducing the success of the platform or app."
  • In order to continually improve the technology necessary to provide their products or services, enormous amounts of data must be readily available. This data is more easily accessible by the CC entities than by the regulators;
  • Because the CC entities are driven by technology they are in the position to be able to quickly remove individuals that are not conforming to the requirements of the CC entity. Additionally, they can better regulate tax payments and monitor compliance with laws and regulations.

Urs Gasser, The Sharing Economy: Disruptive Effects on Regulation and Paths Forward, Swiss Re Institute (June 6, 2016).


However, the regulatory authorities must continue to protect their constituents with the existing laws and regulations. Therefore, it is important that CC entities ensure they are not only engaging in self-regulation but also are working closely with the existing regulators to warrant they are in compliance with existing rules. This means it is also incumbent upon the regulators to think out of the box when necessary and not be viewed as hostile to technology and innovation. We are living in a quickly changing world and regulators must be willing to innovate and adapt.

It has been observed by legal scholar Orly Lobel that those regulators and CC entities willing to work closely together and offer more flexible regulatory approaches will be most likely to address problems created by the CC economy and simultaneously encourage the growth of the CC economy.


As is often the case in emerging industries, the litigation involving CC preceded changes in regulations, some of which were modified after the fact in response to litigation outcomes. The types of cases and issues raised in such litigation is far too broad to be fully addressed or covered here. Instead, an overview of personal injury claims, regulatory litigation and unfair competition claims against transportation network companies ("TNCs") provides insight as to how courts apply well-settled principles of law to emerging technology. In such cases, the best known TNC, Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), consistently asserts that it is a "software company," not a transportation company, because, inter alia, it does not own vehicles or employ drivers. See, e.g. Greater Houston Transp. Co v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc., 2015 WL 1034254, (S.D. Tx. Mar. 10, 2015).


One of the first cases involving a personal injury claim against Uber was the case of Mazaheri v. Doe and Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 2155049 (W.D. Okla. May 22, 2014), appeal dismissed (10th Cir. 14-6189) (Nov. 20, 2014). In Mazaheri, a passenger assaulted by an Uber driver filed suit against Uber for respondeat superior liability and negligent, hiring, supervision and retention. Mazaheri, 2014 WL 2155049 at *1. Uber moved to dismiss the case on grounds that it was not the employer of the unidentified driver, who was sued as "John Doe," and even it was the employer, the assault was outside the scope of the driver's employment. Mazaheri, 2014 WL 2155049, at *2.

In its motion to dismiss, Uber is described as "a software technology company that provides a smartphone application software ("Uber App") that matches passengers looking for a car service with car service company drivers looking for passengers." Mazaheri, 2014 WL 2155049 at *1.

Uber explained in its motion papers:

Uber provides the technology, through its [Uber App] that allows these passengers and drivers to make a "match" based on their location. Uber is similar to opentable.com and the Opentable smartphone application, which matches diners looking for a meal and restaurants with open reservations looking for diners. Just as a diner assaulted by a waiter would have no basis to hold Opentable liable for the waiter's conduct, Plaintiff has no grounds to hold Uber liable for any alleged tortious conduct.

Mazaheri, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Brief, (Doc. 8).

Although the Mazaheri court acknowledged the parties' disagreement as to whether John Doe was an Uber employee, it declined to decide the issue of employment. Instead, the court dismissed the complaint because the alleged assault did not state a claim for respondeat superior liability as assault and battery is not fairly and naturally incident to the Uber's business. Mazaheri, 2014 WL 2155049 at *2. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent hiring, supervision and retention because Plaintiff failed to set forth any allegations that Uber had any prior knowledge of the driver's propensity to commit an assault. Mazaheri, 2014 WL 2155049, at *3.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reached a different result in Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc. 128 F.Supp.3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015). In Search, the passenger was stabbed by an Uber driver following an altercation with the driver. Search, 128 F.Supp.3d at 231. In the Search court, the passenger alleged sufficient facts to support claims that Uber was the employer of the driver and that the driver's actions were incident to his employment with Uber. Search, 128 F.Supp.3d at 231.

The Search court found that the passenger alleged sufficient facts to establish an employee/employer relationship based on the application of the five-factor test for employee-employer relationships that examines (1) involvement in the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power to discharge; (4) power to control the employee's conduct; and (5) whether the employee's work is part of the regular business of the employer. Search, 128 F.Supp.3d at 231. The court reasoned that the passenger's amended complaint set forth facts illustrating Uber's involvement in the selection process of new drivers (by way of its screening procedures); payment of wages (by paying drivers weekly rather than permitting them to collect payment or tips directly from passengers); and termination of employees (by enjoying broad latitude to terminate employees who fail to comply with the company's standards). Search, 128 F.Supp.3d, at 232.

The Search court dismissed the negligent hiring claim, notwithstanding the passenger's reliance on statements made on the Uber website that its "three step screening" process for background checks "has set a new standard" and is "often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver." Search, 128 F.Supp.3d at 230. The court found that the passenger's claim that the hire must have been negligent because the assault occurred to be "res ipsa loquitur-style logic [that] falls short of the threshold required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion." Search, 128 F.Supp.3d at 230.


TNC litigation has involved the application of previously existing regulations and challenges to regulation enacted to accommodate TNCs. In Nevada Transportation Authority v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 9887215 (D. Nev. 2014) (Trial Order), the Nevada Transportation Authority ("NTA") sought to enforce then-existing common carrier regulations, enacted decades before the emergence of TNCs, against Uber. The Second Judicial District for the State of Nevada found that a preliminary injunction was justified because "Uber holds itself out to the public as willing to transport by vehicle any passenger to employ the Uber smartphone application without adhering to the regulations contained within NRS Chapter 706," which define "common motor carrier" and "taxicab." Nevada Transportation Authority, 2014 WL 9887215 at *3. This order, which effectively banned TNCs in Nevada, was rendered moot a few months later by the enactment of legislation by the Nevada Legislature authorizing TNCs to operate in the state. Tracey Lien, Uber Gets Big Win in Nevada as Legislature Oks Bill Authorizing Service, LA Times (May 27, 2015).

In Illinois Transportation Trade Association v. City of Chicago, 839 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2016), the City of Chicago appealed the trial court's refusal to dismiss an equal protection challenge by traditional taxicab operators and owners ("taxi plaintiffs") to an ordinance passed to accommodate TNCs. The taxi plaintiffs claimed that they were subject to much more stringent regulation than the TNCs, which violated taxi plaintiffs' equal protection rights.

In rejecting the equal protection claim, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that there was no equal protection violation because TNCs operate under a different business model than the taxi plaintiffs. For example, the court noted that "you can't hail an Uber vehicle on the street; you must use a smartphone to summon the car." Illinois Transportation, 839 F.3d at 596. The court found that "there are enough differences between taxis service and [TNC] to justify different regulatory schemes, and the existence of such justification dissolves the plaintiffs' equal protection claim." Illinois Transportation, 839 F.3d at 598. Writing for the Court, Judge Posner likened comparing TNCs and the taxicab plaintiffs to comparing "dogs and cats."

He continued:

Suppose the district judge happened to think dogs and cats interchangeable, and on that ground ruled that requiring dogs but not cats to be licensed (the law in Chicago) was a violation of equal protection. The proper response would be that she is entitled to her opinion but not entitled to impose it when the market perceives, and as we noted earlier has reasonable and nondiscriminatory grounds for perceiving, a rational difference between the competing animals that she does not perceive. Her belief that taxis and [TNCs] are interchangeable is similarly not shared by the entire relevant consumer market.

Illinois Transportation, 839 F.3d at 598-99.


In Yellow Group LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2014 WL 3396055 (N.D. Ill. 2014), plaintiffs consisting of taxi medallion owners and taxi cab companies brought claims against Uber for unfairly misrepresenting certain features of its service and for encouraging taxi drivers to breach their agreements with them. Uber moved to dismiss the claim for false advertising for lack of standing because the plaintiffs and Uber were not in direct completion in the same business. The Court dismissed the medallion owners claims because medallion owners do not receive revenue from fares. The court allowed the claims by the taxi cab companies to continue because they plausibly alleged that diversion of riders harms the economic value of their business.

In Greater Houston Transportation Company v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 155 F.Supp.3d 670 (S.D. Tex. 2015) taxicab permit-holders brought claims alleging unfair competition under the Lanham Act and unfair completion under Texas law against Uber and Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft"). Uber and Lyft moved to dismiss the claims.

The Greater Houston court found that Uber's advertising statements regarding the superiority of its service as "safest ride on the road" and "background checks you can trust" were nonactionable puffery. Greater Houston Transportation, 155 F.Supp.3d at 683. However, the court found that the statement "Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking process and standards are consistent across the United States and often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver" applies objective indicia to suggest that Uber has a superior background check process to those of the taxi companies. 155 F.Supp.3d at 686. Accordingly, the court held that the taxi cab permit-holders stated claims under the Lanham Act. 155 F.Supp.3d at 686.


In addition to the samples above, Uber has been required to defend wage and hour claims brought by drivers who claim that Uber misclassifies them as independent contractors instead of employees, see, e.g., In re Uber Technologies, Inc. Wage and Hour Employment Practices, 158 F.Supp. 3d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2016), and claims by potential riders brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 103 F.Supp.3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Uber recently settled two California wage and hour class actions California drivers for the sum of $100 million. Tracey Lien, Uber Will Pay Up to $100 Million to Settle Suits with Drivers Seeking Employee Status, LA Times (April 21, 2016). Claims by disabled riders under the ADA continue.

Such claims undoubtedly will involve the determination of whether the courts should view Uber as merely a technology company that provides a software application or by the standards of the underlying actual service provided when the application is accessed.

This article first appeared in Westlaw's Secondary Source Analytical Content, Emerging Areas of Practice Series in June 2017.


David E. Cannella is a shareholder in Carlton Fields' Orlando office. As a business civil trial attorney, he has tried jury and non-jury business litigation cases to verdict as lead trial counsel in state and federal court.

Barry Leigh Weissman is a shareholder in Carlton Fields' Los Angeles office. He represents insurance and reinsurance companies in regulatory and transactional matters as well as in all forms of dispute resolution including arbitration, litigation, and mediation in state and federal courts on bad faith, complex litigation, and multidistrict matters.

Thomson Reuters develops and delivers intelligent information and solutions for professionals, connecting and empowering global markets. We enable professionals to make the decisions that matter most, all powered by the world's most trusted news organization.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions