Vilcek v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-2724 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by four taxicab drivers against Uber, alleging that Uber tortiously interfered with a valid business expectancy. The court held that it need not decide whether there was a valid business expectancy because plaintiffs failed to allege the absence of justification under Missouri law. In this case, there was no evidence that the legislature intended to create a private cause of action based on violation of the Missouri Taxicab Commission's code and requirements.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Melloy and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Tortious interference with a business expectancy. In this putative class action by taxi drivers against Uber, alleging the company's offer of competing services without complying with the licensing and fingerprinting requirements imposed by the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission tortiously interfered with the taxi drivers' valid business expectancy, the district court did not err in finding the taxi drivers had not stated a claim under Missouri law, because they failed to allege the absence of justification, a necessary element of a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy; there was no evidence that the legislature intended to create a private cause of action based on violation of the Missouri Taxicab Commission's code and requirements.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.