PUC files petitions against ride-share companies Lyft, Uber
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission stepped up its legal battle against ride-share companies Uber and Lyft on Monday, filing paperwork seeking a cease-and-desist order that would prohibit the companies from offering rides.
The PUC's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement filed a 20-page petition against Lyft and a 22-page petition against Uber asking commissioners to schedule a hearing before an administrative law judge by June 26.
The cease-and-desist requests occur less than two weeks after the enforcement division filed paperwork proposing fining Lyft $130,000 and Uber $95,000 for what the agency calls illegal operations since they started in February and March, respectively. The commission also proposed fining 23 previously cited drivers $1,000 each.
Lyft and Uber, based in San Francisco, have five days to respond. Neither firm responded to requests for comment.
Lyft and Uber told the Tribune-Review last week that they would continue to operate in Pittsburgh despite the fines and pledged to cover the costs of PUC citations to their drivers.
The commission contends that with their operating without a license and using uncertified drivers, it cannot ensure driver integrity, vehicle safety and sufficient insurance coverage.
“Until these important questions are resolved and Uber, as well as Uber drivers, become licensed or certified entities that abide by the commission's important safety regulations, the commission should demand that Uber cease from operating,” attorneys for the PUC wrote.
Bobby Kerlik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.