San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down | Entrepreneur.com

San Francisco was having none of it. Back in June, City Attorney Dennis Herrera served the startup a cease-and-desist letter, which argued that not only does the app create "a predatory private market for parking spaces" but it encourages drivers to pay attention to the bidding wars taking place on their phones instead of the road. He gave the startup until July 11 to shut down, or it would face substantial fines for each transaction.[/B][/U]

...

Well, it's July 11 and MonkeyParking is officially no more. For now, at least. In a blog post, the Rome-based company announced that its service had been "temporarily disabled,"

Lmao. I thought this was a violation of the first amendment? Oh my, I thought there was no legal ground for the city to shut this app down? I thought that the city has no jurisdiction over its own parking spots? I thought advertising parking spots for sale was perfectly legal because information was being sold? Well, it's good to know shills for this company have absolutely no clue what it is they're discussing. Here is the best part:

Our mission is to get rid of circling the block turning a random parking process into a predictable one, saving people time while also reducing traffic congestion and generated pollution. We want to achieve our mission within the intent and letter of the law and in full cooperation with the local authorities.

...

The company said it is working "to avoid any possible improper use of our service and provide a positive tool for the City of San Francisco" and urges users to stay tuned for more updates.

No. Your mission is to turn a buck from property which doesn't belong to you. I'm glad San Francisco stuck to its guns on this issue. Case closed.

CalGun · Jul 13, 2014

Just another little reason to avoid the fascist Mecca of the left.

Hatuey said:
San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down | Entrepreneur.com

Lmao. I thought this was a violation of the first amendment? Oh my, I thought there was no legal ground for the city to shut this app down? I thought that the city has no jurisdiction over its own parking spots? I thought advertising parking spots for sale was perfectly legal because information was being sold? Well, it's good to know shills for this company have absolutely no clue what it is they're discussing. Here is the best part:

No. Your mission is to turn a buck from property which doesn't belong to you. I'm glad San Francisco stuck to its guns on this issue. Case closed.

TeleKat · Jul 13, 2014

I genuinely don't see an issue with what they are doing. Their service can save people alot of time, alot of money, and generally just make lives earlier.

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

TeleKat said:
I genuinely don't see an issue with what they are doing. Their service can save people alot of time, alot of money, and generally just make lives earlier.

You don't have a right to use public property as a trading commodity. There isn't a lawyer out there who would argue such a thing.

Master PO · Jul 13, 2014

San Francisco has no authority to tell a ROME based company to do anything.

TeleKat · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
You don't have a right to use public property as a trading commodity. There isn't a lawyer out there who would argue such a thing.

But they aren't selling the parking spots, they are just telling you where they are aren't they?

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
San Francisco has no authority to tell a ROME based company to do anything.

Demonstrably false:

Supreme Court: Unless They Do Business Here, You Can’t Sue Foreign Companies In The US | Corporate Law Report

“Notably, the Court’s decision does not limit the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over non-US corporations. Thus, the risk to a non-US corporation of suit in the US remains when the facts relating to the claim or the injuries at issue were in the forum state. There are other defenses to the assertion to jurisdiction to such cases, but none of those were implicated by the Supreme Court’s Daimler ruling.”

If SF decided to sue this company it very well could considering the parking spots in question were located in the city and were public property of the city.

TeleKat said:
But they aren't selling the parking spots, they are just telling you where they are aren't they?

Not really. If that were all it was, the business plan for the entire app would collapse. The transaction is entirely dependent on a person holding the spot long enough for the other person to take over it. In short, it's a business created on the exchange of public parking for money. I'll get out of the spot, once you pay for it. In short, it's public property held for a ransom.

TeleKat · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
Not really. If that were all it was, the business plan for the entire app would collapse. The transaction is entirely dependent on a person holding the spot long enough for the other person to take over it. In short, it's a business created on the exchange of public parking for money. I'll get out of the spot, once you pay for it. In short, it's public property held for a ransom.

Ah, it seems like I might have misunderstood.

Lord of Planar · Jul 13, 2014

TeleKat said:
I genuinely don't see an issue with what they are doing. Their service can save people alot of time, alot of money, and generally just make lives earlier.

Sure, for the few advantaged that can pay the hostage price of a parking space.

MaggieD · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down | Entrepreneur.com

Lmao. I thought this was a violation of the first amendment? Oh my, I thought there was no legal ground for the city to shut this app down? I thought that the city has no jurisdiction over its own parking spots? I thought advertising parking spots for sale was perfectly legal because information was being sold? Well, it's good to know shills for this company have absolutely no clue what it is they're discussing. Here is the best part:

No. Your mission is to turn a buck from property which doesn't belong to you. I'm glad San Francisco stuck to its guns on this issue. Case closed.

Gloat explosion imminent.

Lord of Planar · Jul 13, 2014

TeleKat said:
But they aren't selling the parking spots, they are just telling you where they are aren't they?

They are aiding unfair profiteering of public property.

Lord of Planar · Jul 13, 2014

TeleKat said:
Ah, it seems like I might have misunderstood.

So do most people.

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

MaggieD said:
Gloat explosion imminent.

Ain't no shame in gloating if you're right. The parking spots are public property of SF. The city of SF has a right to determine how they are used. A company in Rome doesn't. First come, first served.

Lord of Planar · Jul 13, 2014

MaggieD said:
Gloat explosion imminent.

I'll gloat to this extent.

I expected this to be one of a few possibilities, if favor of SF.

MaggieD · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
Ain't no shame in gloating if you're right. The parking spots are public property of SF. The city of SF has a right to determine how they are used. A company in Rome doesn't. First come, first served.

Oh, hell! I'd gloat, too!

Remember, though, that the company capitulating doesn't necessary mean it's been "decided". Right? Until it winds it way through the court system, nothing's been proven except "the big guy wins". I'm just sayin'...

Lord of Planar · Jul 13, 2014

MaggieD said:
Oh, hell! I'd gloat, too!

Remember, though, that the company capitulating doesn't necessary mean it's been "decided". Right? Until it winds it way through the court system, nothing's been proven except "the big guy wins". I'm just sayin'...

My bet is they will tweak the application to filter friendly and foe cities rather than take it to court.

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

MaggieD said:
Oh, hell! I'd gloat, too!

Remember, though, that the company capitulating doesn't necessary mean it's been "decided". Right? Until it winds it way through the court system, nothing's been proven except "the big guy wins". I'm just sayin'...

I beg to differ. Companies like this one have been regularly taken to court over the same types of matter and 4 outcomes seem to happen:

1. The company settles out of court.
2. The company withdraws from the city/state.
3. It is established that cities have a right to determine how public property is used.
4. The company complies with the law.

This is Civics 101. Private companies don't have a right to create class systems that determine who gets to use public property. If a company decides to build parking spaces, I'm all for it setting the pricing schemes as it chooses. What I'm not in favor of is being charged by some asshole on the street for public property that my taxes paid for.

MaggieD · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
I beg to differ. Companies like this one have been regularly taken to court over the same types of matter and 4 outcomes seem to happen:

1. The company settles out of court.
2. The company withdraws from the city/state.
3. It is established that cities have a right to determine how public property is used.
4. The company complies with the law.

This is Civics 101. Private companies don't have a right to create class systems that determine who gets to use public property. If a company decides to build parking spaces, I'm all for it setting the pricing schemes as it chooses. What I'm not in favor of is being charged by some asshole on the street for public property that my taxes paid for.

Mind begging to differ with a link supporting your claim?

I don't feel strongly one way or another. It's one of those posts I weighed in on thinking, "They're selling a service." If this has already been adjudicated, I'd appreciate a link.

Dezaad · Jul 13, 2014

Lord of Planar said:
My bet is they will tweak the application to filter friendly and foe cities rather than take it to court.

I would love it if they would do this, because then we could see which cities had a more unpleasant parking experience, and therefore which ones are the ones really to avoid. My bet would be that after the market developed, the 'friendly' cities would be VERY expensive to find parking in at peak times.

CalGun said:
Just another little reason to avoid the fascist Mecca of the left.

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

MaggieD said:
Mind begging to differ with a link supporting your claim?

I don't feel strongly one way or another. It's one of those posts I weighed in on thinking, "They're selling a service." If this has already been adjudicated, I'd appreciate a link.

Amazon settles when told it needs to pay sales tax in Texas:

Amazon, Texas reach deal to settle sales tax spat

Online retailer Amazon.com reached an agreement with Texas officials Friday to settle a sales tax dispute by expanding operations in the state and starting to collect sales taxes.

The deal comes less than a year after Amazon shut down a distribution center in Irving to protest a $269 million tax bill sent by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs in 2010.

Amazon ends affiliate program in Illinois - CNET

Amazon.com is ending another affiliates program over states' efforts to collect sales tax.

The Internet retailer notified its affiliates in Illinois yesterday that it would sever their business relationships after Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law a bill that would require in-state affiliates to collect state sales tax on purchases made by Illinois residents. Affiliates place ads for retailers on their Web sites and get paid when customers make purchases via the ads.

Apps who also share information are shut down because of a little something called functionality:

Sorry, You Can

At the end of the day, the app (or “platform,” in tech speak) facilitates a contract between two users to exchange money for public parking, which neither of them owns.

That line of thinking is consistent with how regulators have looked at other “sharing” services, like Uber, Airbnb, and most notably Aereo. Aereo, a streaming TV service that houses tiny antennas that pick up broadcast signals in a remote location and allowed subscribers to access the antenna through the internet, was deemed in violation of copyright law by the US Supreme Court last month, because it did not pay broadcasters for retransmission fees as cable companies are required to do.

Cities/states have a right to establish how public property is used by companies operating within its borders:

Ride-share operator Lyft's New York launch hit snag

Ride-share operator Lyft was forced Friday to postpone its planned launch in New York after a court intervened over demands that it satisfy local safety and licensing requirements.

New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and financial services superintendent Benjamin Lawsky said they sought a temporary restraining order after talks broke down with Lyft.

The move came hours ahead of the planned release of Lyft, a ride-sharing service that operates in 60 US cities and competes with the likes of Uber.

Not just in the US, around the world too:

China: Shanghai Bans Taxi Apps in Rush Hour

Shanghai authorites have banned the use of a taxi apps during peak business times, from 7:30- 9:30am and 4:30-6:30pm.

The Chinese city's government has said the app, which users hail cabs with, is unfair on other taxi firms who do not have a similar app.

The new rules on smartphone apps is a setback for tech firms hoping to capitalise on the trend for taxi-ordering apps.

Berlin follows Brussels with Uber ban | City A.M.

Germany's capital city has followed the lead of Brussels and banned the insurgent taxi service Uber.

The San-Francisco based company was served with an injunction by a Berlin court for hurting competition.

Jack Hays · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down | Entrepreneur.com

Lmao. I thought this was a violation of the first amendment? Oh my, I thought there was no legal ground for the city to shut this app down? I thought that the city has no jurisdiction over its own parking spots? I thought advertising parking spots for sale was perfectly legal because information was being sold? Well, it's good to know shills for this company have absolutely no clue what it is they're discussing. Here is the best part:

No. Your mission is to turn a buck from property which doesn't belong to you. I'm glad San Francisco stuck to its guns on this issue. Case closed.

Hmmm. I suppose the case will turn on whether they are selling parking spots or information about parking spots.eace

MaggieD · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
Amazon settles when told it needs to pay sales tax in Texas:

Amazon, Texas reach deal to settle sales tax spat

Amazon ends affiliate program in Illinois - CNET

Apps who also share information are shut down because of a little something called functionality:

Sorry, You Can

Cities/states have a right to establish how public property is used by companies operating within its borders:

Ride-share operator Lyft's New York launch hit snag

Not just in the US, around the world too:

China: Shanghai Bans Taxi Apps in Rush Hour

Berlin follows Brussels with Uber ban | City A.M.

I surrender, Mr. Hat.

Edit: Good job.

Master PO · Jul 13, 2014

Hatuey said:
Demonstrably false:

Supreme Court: Unless They Do Business Here, You Can’t Sue Foreign Companies In The US | Corporate Law Report

If SF decided to sue this company it very well could considering the parking spots in question were located in the city and were public property of the city.

Not really. If that were all it was, the business plan for the entire app would collapse. The transaction is entirely dependent on a person holding the spot long enough for the other person to take over it. In short, it's a business created on the exchange of public parking for money. I'll get out of the spot, once you pay for it. In short, it's public property held for a ransom.

i stated San Francisco has no authority over a Rome based business, meaning if it operations is not in the u.s. it has no power......only the federal government has power in cases like this one.

the long arm of San Francisco law does not reach Italy.

Anthony60 · Jul 13, 2014

“It creates a predatory private market for public parking spaces that San Franciscans will not tolerate,” Herrera said in June. “Worst of all, it encourages drivers to use their mobile devices unsafely — to engage in online bidding wars while driving.”

Oh, contraire, Mr. Herrera. Not only will San Franciscans tolerate it, they are the ones using it. They have embraced it.
So that statement is false. Oh, and please, drivers are using the devices unsafely? That's what he cares about? A load of B.S. there.
I think that they wouldn't give a crap about this if there was no money being exchanged for the information. They just can't stand that they aren't getting a cut.

You know what will be next? S.F. will come out with its own app, or partner with these people, and get a piece of the action. Then, all of a sudden, they will have no problem with it, even as people crash into each other as they madly bid for spaces.

Hatuey · Jul 13, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
i stated San Francisco has no authority over a Rome based business, meaning if it operations is not in the u.s. it has no power......only the federal government has power in cases like this one.

the long arm of San Francisco law does not reach Italy.

Not only is that false. It makes me question whether you know anything about American law. SF can sue MonkeyParking in SF, CA, USA because what was being exchanged was SF property. The federal government is entirely irrelevant and this has been demonstrated by SCOTUS:

World in US Courts Special Edition: January 2014 - New US Supreme Court Decision Limits Suits Against Non-US Corporations | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP - JDSupra

Daimler sought to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over it in California. There are two ways to establish such jurisdiction. The first is to show there is “general personal jurisdiction” over the defendant, which generally requires that the defendant have contacts with a forum that are continuous and substantial. If general personal jurisdiction exists, the defendant may be sued even if the claim relates to activities and injuries having nothing to do with the forum where the suit has been brought. The second method of establishing personal jurisdiction is to show “specific personal jurisdiction.” To do so, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the facts giving rise to the claim themselves bear a sufficient relationship to the forum.

Are you seriously going to argue that San Francisco doesn't have a right to sue a company in a case where the facts are entirely based within San Francisco's jurisdiction and dependent on SF public infrastructure? Seriously? Jurisdictions have a right to sue/dictate laws within their borders. Get used to it.

San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down

Hatuey

Rule of Two

CalGun

TeleKat

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

TeleKat

Hatuey

Rule of Two

TeleKat

Lord of Planar

MaggieD

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Lord of Planar

MaggieD

Lord of Planar

Hatuey

Rule of Two

MaggieD

Dezaad

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Jack Hays

Traveler

MaggieD

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate

Anthony60

Hatuey

Rule of Two

San Francisco Says Enough Monkey Business: Tells Parking Spot App to Shut Down

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Mixed Government advocate

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Traveler

Mixed Government advocate

Rule of Two

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency