Comment by dataflow a day ago
This seems... interesting, legally speaking. I imagine the idea is that you're implicitly accepting alterations to the previous contract by opting to take the car? Would that argument hold water, legally?
I ran into a similar arbitration with a condo I rented for a long weekend. There was a significant issue and they weren't able to provide another place. We stayed there and had contractors in and out for the next couple of days. They refused to refund me, so I tried through my credit card to get a refund and they said "well you should have just left, then we would refund you. But since you stayed, the contract is fulfilled."
If you’re just off a flight, you could just use a normal yellow cab.
You could but there are multiple reasons why Uber dethroned taxis and probably the most important ones are that you get a route to your destination and a fixed price to get there.
My first trip to Paris many years ago, I felt that I was getting the "scenic tour" to my hotel from the airport but I wasn't sure where I was and certainly didn't know the best way between the two. There were other variations in other cities.
For a while, I lived near an airport and taxi drivers would be angry because they'd waited a long time to do a short ride and now would have to go back to the end of the line.
It’s plain bait and switch.
You paid a premium for promised X, specifically. Y showed up. This is the equivalent of buying a first class ticket, and getting put in economy.
Someone should class action this bs.
If I've learned anything from watching startups on HN, the US is a lawless wasteland where as long as you've got a couple of billion in VC funding you can do anything. I eagerly await the first murder-for-hire startup.