In a recent article, The Boston Herald asked Suffolk Law Professor Janice Griffith whether taxi owners were likely to prevail in their federal law suit against ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft. The taxi companies contend that Boston and state officials are violating their rights by forcing them to purchase expensive medallions and not requiring ride-sharing drivers to do likewise. Griffith is an expert in municipal and administrative law. 

“If there’s any reasonable basis or rational basis for the different treatment between taxis and ride-sharing service,” the court likely would not look favorably on the taxi owners’ argument, Griffith told the Herald.

In an article looking at critical questions about the Uber versus Taxi battle, Griffith argues that ride-sharing services are here to stay because they make hailing a taxi more convenient. As for how ride-sharing services might be regulated, she points to Colorado’s ride-sharing statute, which requires:

  • $1 million insurance required per occurrence for incidents involving a  driver during a prearranged ride
  • drivers’ personal automobile liability insurance
  • disclosure of applicable rates or method of calculation
  • option to receive an estimated fare
  • electronic receipt upon completion of ride
  • driver requirements, such as minimum age to drive and a valid driver’s license; ban on driving more than twelve consecutive hours; implementation of a “intoxicating substance” policy
  • criminal history check and driving history research report
  • annual vehicle inspections

Mobile companies that meet the above requirements can get a permit to operate in Colorado for $325. The statute bars mobile service drivers from accepting riders through a “street hail.”