Mapelli Elizabeth A
Am Univ Law Rev. 2018;67(6):1947-87.
This Comment will focus on Uber and its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While it may seem logical that Uber should adhere to the same ADA regulations as taxis, the relevant ADA provision only applies to private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. To avoid these regulations, Uber asserts that it is primarily a technology company, rather than primarily a transportation company. However, the more expansive approach, consistent with the ADA's purpose of eliminating discrimination against persons with disabilities, is to classify Uber's services as public accommodations. While the ADA's public accommodation provision governs physical spaces such as restaurants, shopping centers, and offices, some jurisdictions have recently decided that web-based entities and services are public accommodations. Thus, even if a court were to accept Uber's claim that it is primarily a technology company rather than a transportation company, Uber would still be required to adhere to the ADA's public accommodation provision. This Comment presents and analyzes three rationales for defining Uber as a public accommodation under the ADA: (1) web-based activities are distinct public accommodations, (2) the physical vehicles that Uber operates are places of public accommodation, and (3) Uber is a "travel service" or "other service establishment" as defined in the ADA.
本评论将聚焦于优步及其在美国《残疾人法案》（ADA）下的义务。虽然优步似乎理应遵守与出租车相同的ADA规定，但ADA的相关条款仅适用于主要从事载人运输业务的私人实体。为规避这些规定，优步坚称自己主要是一家科技公司，而非主要是一家运输公司。然而，与ADA消除对残疾人歧视的目的相一致的更宽泛做法，是将优步的服务归类为公共设施。虽然ADA的公共设施条款适用于餐厅、购物中心和办公室等实体空间，但一些司法管辖区最近判定基于网络的实体和服务属于公共设施。因此，即使法院接受优步称其主要是一家科技公司而非运输公司的说法，优步仍须遵守ADA的公共设施条款。本评论提出并分析了根据ADA将优步定义为公共设施的三个理由：（1）基于网络的活动是独特的公共设施，（2）优步运营的实体车辆是公共设施场所，（3）优步是ADA所定义的“旅行服务”或“其他服务机构”。
