FTC Complaint
Active Member
Semantics Aside: Uber drivers in CA will be considered employees, not contractors
Semantics Aside: Perks on IGG will be considered to be a purchase and a sale, not a nebulous exculpation from law and ethical conduct.
Does this sound familiar;
“The defendants hold themselves out as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation,” the commissioner wrote. “The reality, however, is that defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”
I bet with Storm ebike and other offerings it does; IGG is a platform for the sale of goods and has a vested interest and consideration for the same.
From a related class action (substitute IGG for Uber) : Uber is no more a “technology company” than Yellow Cab is a “technology company” because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a “technology company” because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a “technology company” because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane. Indeed, very few (if any) firms are not technology companies if one focuses solely on how they create or distribute their products. If, however, the focus is on the substance of what the firm actually does. (from a class action; Judge Chen goes on to say that old rules must be applied to the "sharing economy" until such time as new laws are written, I just say apply common sense)
IGG Sells and markets product, plain and simple.
Semantics Aside: Perks on IGG will be considered to be a purchase and a sale, not a nebulous exculpation from law and ethical conduct.
Does this sound familiar;
“The defendants hold themselves out as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation,” the commissioner wrote. “The reality, however, is that defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”
I bet with Storm ebike and other offerings it does; IGG is a platform for the sale of goods and has a vested interest and consideration for the same.
From a related class action (substitute IGG for Uber) : Uber is no more a “technology company” than Yellow Cab is a “technology company” because it uses CB radios to dispatch taxi cabs, John Deere is a “technology company” because it uses computers and robots to manufacture lawn mowers, or Domino Sugar is a “technology company” because it uses modern irrigation techniques to grow its sugar cane. Indeed, very few (if any) firms are not technology companies if one focuses solely on how they create or distribute their products. If, however, the focus is on the substance of what the firm actually does. (from a class action; Judge Chen goes on to say that old rules must be applied to the "sharing economy" until such time as new laws are written, I just say apply common sense)
IGG Sells and markets product, plain and simple.
Last edited:
