As unsavory as their business practice is, I wouldn't go that far, yet. Organized crime is much more than an organization which commits crimes. Money laundering, racketeering, extortion, murder and/or assault, trafficking in contraband, prostitution rings, corruption in public office, and many more factors are part of being organized crime. It's a complex system that goes far beyond Uber's anti-competitive practices, deplorable though they are.
It might appear that bvanslyke is correct because if Uber is understood to be breaking the law and that revolves around the core of their business then they could be considered in the business of organized crime.
I can't help but question whether the difference is doing something illegal to obtain the money and THAT being the organized crime part or the fact that their means of generating revenue could be viewed as legal but that it isn't legal because of consumer protection and liability laws.
In other words, shaking someone down for protection money is illegal. Driving someone from point A to point B is legal. Doing it as an unlicensed cab is illegal but the actual practice isn't.
I liken what they do to be more closer to how Tesla chooses to sell their cars. Legal in theory and and ethically positive but not legal in some areas due to skirting the line between where the laws come into place.
I don't think RICO statutes would be a very strong case against Uber.
Are you technically an unlicensed cab if you won't drive your friend to the airport unless he gives you gas money?
I think they certainly could reach some level of organized crime status if they keep sliding down the already slippery slope they are on. I didn't mean for it to sound like all of those things I listed were required for that classification, they were just meant as examples. Here's the actual definition straight from the FBI:
"The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole."
The difference between Uber's business model and Tesla's is that, unlike Uber, Tesla isn't trying to get other dealerships shut down by wasting their money with fake customers, nor are they poaching and trying to convert employees over to their company. Tesla is trying to get rid of outdated laws that, in today's day and age, only encourage dealerships to screw over their customers. There was a time when those laws served their original purpose, to protect dealers from manufacturers. But the world has changed a lot since then.
>
"The FBI defines organized crime as any group having some manner of a formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities. Such groups maintain their position through the use of actual or threatened violence, corrupt public officials, graft, or extortion, and generally have a significant impact on the people in their locales, region, or the country as a whole."
This does not describe Uber's activities. While there is plenty wrong with Uber the hyperbole of describing them as near organised crime is unhelpful.
Uber used fake rides as a recruitment technique; they did not knee-cap drivers for other companies.
People don't say that, because "organized crime" is an idiom that carries more specific meaning than simply "crime which is organized." Two coworkers who arrange to carpool and then exceed the speed limit are committing crime which is organized, but I also wouldn't describe them as engaging in "organized crime."
The organized part in organized from refers to an organization. The crime part obviously refers to the crime but the actual definition refers to the fact that the organization gets its revenue through the commission of crime.
It isn't quite the same as committing a planned crime.
