Connect with us

Published

on

The Uber app application with a map of New York City is seen on an Apple iPhone mobile phone in this photo illustration Warsaw, Poland on 21 September, 2022.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

In some ways, Uber and Lyft are back to square one.

With federal regulators set to tighten Trump-era labor standards that let Uber and Lyft, as well as food-delivery services like Doordash, treat gig workers as independent contractors with few protections under labor law, shares dropped sharply last week. But while a shift, the Department of Labor proposal doesn’t immediately transform gig workers into employees entitled to overtime pay, unemployment insurance and other benefits.

What’s clear is that the ongoing conflict over how these on-demand companies treat their drivers isn’t going away, since an estimated one in six Americans has worked in the gig economy in one way or another. Analysts and pundits following the rideshare industry think the future holds some series of compromises that will give drivers at least limited benefits — a model known as independent contractor-plus — with some believing that the Biden administration’s pro-union stance will lead to workers being classified as employees eventually. 

Both solutions would be likely to raise Uber and Lyft’s costs — and create a different business model for the entrepreneurs using their cars to run, in effect, small businesses of their own. And each highlights the unrealized promise of ridesharing business models: The absence of self-driving cars that investors once believed would make profits at the companies soar and put most drivers out of business.

“It seems like the start of a Game of Thrones battle between the Department of Labor and the gig economy,’ Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said. “When pressure was confined to the states, it was one thing. It has added another variable.”

For now, the rules proposed by the DOL won’t make drivers into employees, who would also be entitled to benefits such as minimum-wage protection, overtime pay, and to be paid when they are at work but don’t have a passenger in their car. Such a move would likely also cause pressure on the companies to offer the drivers health insurance and vacation pay, especially for the minority of drivers who do gig work full-time, though Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak said state-level litigation could also force such change.

Uber, Lyft shares sink after Labor Department issues proposal on gig workers

For now, the DoL rules will apply a broader series of tests to determine who is a truly independent contractor and who’s not. The companies point to the flexibility of rideshare employment, which lets drivers set their own hours, as a sign that drivers are independent contractors. Advocates for drivers being treated as employees argue that Uber and Lyft set workers’ pay, dispatch them to trips, and monitor their work as closely as they would an employee’s, even using technology to ask passengers in mid-ride whether their driver is acting erratically based on a vehicle’s speed.

The shift in federal policy, largely restoring the status quo under the Obama administration (and most of the Trump years, since the last administration didn’t loosen the rules until early 2021), comes at a delicate time for both rideshare companies.

Each has been promising Wall Street that it will soon turn profitable. By some standards — especially the more lenient earnings before interest taxes, depreciation and amortization — they have gotten there. But neither makes money under formal accounting standards, and neither has had positive free cash flow over the last 12 months, though Uber was positive in the second quarter. 

Both businesses were hammered by the Covid pandemic, which made both drivers and passengers use car services much less often. Each company lost more than half of its value in 2020, recovered to new highs by last year, and has seen shares pounded anew in 2022. 

And that pain has been passed along to drivers, who have seen their pay cut since before the pandemic, said Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United in Los Angeles and a rideshare driver herself.

“They got America hooked on cheap rides, and drivers hooked on what they got paid,” Moore said. “Now passengers are paying more, and drivers are getting paid less.”

Uber believes the Department of Labor is focused less on ridesharing and more on industries such as construction that also use gig workers, pointing out that the proposed rule doesn’t single out rideshare drivers. 

“The Department of Labor listened to drivers, who consistently and overwhelmingly state that they prefer the unique flexibility that comes with being an independent contractor,” Uber head of federal affairs CR Wooters said in a statement. “Today’s proposed rule takes a measured approach, essentially returning us to the Obama era, during which our industry grew exponentially.”

The company also disputes Moore’s claims. It says driver pay has risen, reaching $37 per what Uber calls a utilized hour.  The company’s 10-Q filing doesn’t disclose an average utilization rate – or percentage of hours a car is carrying passengers while a driver is on the clock – but  Sergio Avedian, senior contributor at industry blog The Rideshare Guy, said it’s about 60%. Uber drivers also supply their own cars and gasoline, though the company in March added a per-trip fuel surcharge that goes directly to drivers.

Uber and Amazon Flex drivers protest the fuel price serge and demand more money outside an Amazon warehouse in Redondo Beach, California, March 16, 2022.

Mike Blake | Reuters

The risk of change in the legal environment is pushing the companies toward a new kind of business model, similar to what has happened in Washington State already under a new law, said Avedian, who is a driver for both Uber and Lyft himself.

In Washington, drivers are still considered contractors, but Seattle drivers are guaranteed $1.65 a mile, which he said is more than double the prevailing rate in California, effective next Jan. 1. (Rates will be lower elsewhere in Washington). They also will get worker’s compensation insurance, paid time off and a right to appeal if they are effectively terminated by the companies.

“The only reason to be involved in the gig economy is the flexibility,” Avedian said, referring to policies that let rideshare drivers set their own hours. “Uber’s not going to do that and give you employment rights. If you put [health insurance, Social Security taxes and other benefits] in, Uber will go to zero.”

New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts are working with the companies on deals similar to the one reached in Washington, Nowak said. Uber and Lyft have coped with new requirements in Washington with little impact and would be able to weather any hit to profits as the model spreads, he wrote.

“Reaching an agreement in those states was important 24 hours ago (before this announcement), and it still is today,” Nowak said in relation to the DoL rule proposal.

Both companies said they are willing to work on such deals with state regulators, exchanging better pay for continuing the flexibility that independent contracting allows the companies. “It’s incumbent on us to make it appealing to drivers, because they have lots of options,” said Uber spokeswoman Alix Anfang, referencing the tight labor market.

Surveys by The Rideshare Guy also show that most drivers prefer to be independent contractors.

Any increase in expenses from classifying drivers as employees, or otherwise raising their pay, is likely to be recovered in the form of higher prices because the companies have already cut their fixed expenses hard, said CFRA Research analyst Angelo Zino. How much costs may rise isn’t known, but the range of possibilities runs from 10 percent to 30 percent, he said. Uber is also pursuing advertising revenue, which may produce as much as 20 percent of the company’s profit before interest, taxes and non-cash expenses within three years, he said.

The need to prevent drivers from claiming full employment benefits, if regulators ever do classify them as employees, is likely to mean the companies pressure drivers to work less than full time, Moore said. Companies like Amazon that also use quasi-independent drivers may face some of the same issues as Uber and Lyft, Nowak said. 

All of this would matter less if the companies were closer to implementing self-driving vehicles on a large scale, which would have let them reduce the cost of drivers. Uber’s federal disclosures ahead of its 2019 IPO predicted the company would become a hybrid of automated and human-driven transportation, and Lyft’s filings said self-driving cars would “be a critical part of the future of transportation.”

Last week, Lyft president John Zimmer, who had previously predicted majority self-driving by 2021, said he got it wrong, but he added, “I really think in the next two to three years that kind of actual no driver, driverless vehicle will be something you can order pretty easily on the Lyft platform.”

Gig workers are likely to remain on the scene, and their business models will change, Avedian said. The question is whether they will change fast enough for drivers and regulators.

“If it’s enforced, we will have status, benefits and pay that is guaranteed to employees under the law,” Moore said. “99 percent of drivers want to be independent — but we’re not.”

Join us October 25 – 26, 2022 for the CNBC Work Summit — Dislocation, Negotiation, and Determination: The World of Work Right Now. Visit CNBC Events to register.

Continue Reading

Technology

Google and Disney reach deal to restore ESPN, ABC to YouTube TV

Published

on

By

Google and Disney reach deal to restore ESPN, ABC to YouTube TV

Alphabet and Disney on Friday announced that they’ve reached a deal to restore content from ABC and ESPN onto Google’s YouTube TV.

The deal comes after a two-week standoff between the two companies that started on Oct. 31. The stalemate resulted in numerous live sporting events, including college football games and two Monday Night Football games, being absent from the popular streaming service.

“We’re happy to share that we’ve reached an agreement with Disney that preserves the value of our service for our subscribers and future flexibility in our offers,” YouTube said in a statement. “Subscribers should see channels including ABC, ESPN and FX returning to their service over the course of the day, as well as any recordings that were previously in their Library. We apologize for the disruption and appreciate our subscribers’ patience as we negotiated on their behalf.”

Disney Entertainment’s co-chairs Alan Bergman and Dana Walden, along with ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro, said in a statement that said the agreement reflects “how audiences choose to watch” entertainment.

“We are pleased that our networks have been restored in time for fans to enjoy the many great programming options this weekend, including college football,” they said.

More than 20 Disney-owned channels were removed from YouTube TV, which offered its subscribers $20 credits this week due to the dispute. In addition to ABC and ESPN, other networks that were unavailable included FX, NatGeo, Disney Channel and Freeform. 

The main sticking point between the two companies was the rate Disney charges YouTube TV for its networks. Disney’s most valuable channel, ESPN, charges carriage of more than $10 a month per pay-TV subscriber, a higher fee than any other network in the U.S., CNBC previously reported.

It’s not the first conflict this year between YouTube and legacy media.

NBCUniversal content was nearly removed from YouTube TV before the companies reached an agreement in October, preventing shows like “Sunday Night Football” and “America’s Got Talent” from being pulled.

YouTube TV also found itself in a standoff with Fox in August that almost resulted in Fox News, Fox Sports and other Fox channels going dark on the service just before the start of the college football season. The two sides were able to strike a deal to prevent a blackout.

YouTube said it has the option for future program packages with Disney and other partners.

Disney said that access to a selection of live and on-demand programming from ESPN Unlimited, which includes content from ESPN+ and new content on its all-inclusive digital service coming later this year, will be available on YouTube TV to base plan subscribers at no additional cost by the end of 2026.

Here’s the memo that Disney executives sent to employees:

Team,

We’re pleased to share that we’ve reached a new agreement with YouTube TV, and all of our stations and networks are in the process of being restored to the service.

While this was a challenging moment, it ultimately led to a strong outcome for both consumers and for our company, with a deal that recognizes the tremendous value of the high-quality entertainment, sports, and news that fans have come to expect from Disney.

Over the past few years, we’ve led the way in creating innovative deals with key partners –
each one unique, and each designed to recognize the full value of our programming. This new agreement reflects that same creativity and commitment to doing what’s best for both our audiences and our business.

We’re proud of the work that went into this deal and grateful to everyone who helped make it happen — especially Sean Breen, Jimmy Zasowski, and the Platform Distribution team for their tireless commitment throughout this process.

Thank you all for your patience and professionalism over the past several weeks. As you all know, the media landscape continues to evolve quickly, which makes these types of negotiations complex. What hasn’t changed is our focus on the viewer. Our priority is — and will always be — delivering the best experiences and the best value to fans, and we’ll continue working closely with our partners to ensure we’re fulfilling that mission for our audiences.

We’re incredibly optimistic about what’s ahead and grateful to all of you for continuing to set the standard for entertainment around the world.

Alan, Dana & Jimmy

Disclosure: Comcast is the parent company of NBCUniversal, which owns CNBC. Versant would become the new parent company of CNBC upon Comcast’s planned spinoff of Versant.

WATCH: Google has a lot more leverage over Disney in their carriage fight: LightShed’s Rich Greenfield

Continue Reading

Technology

We’re looking to further trim this drug stock and exit this entertainment giant

Published

on

By

We're looking to further trim this drug stock and exit this entertainment giant

Continue Reading

Technology

JPMorgan Chase wins fight with fintech firms over fees to access customer data

Published

on

By

JPMorgan Chase wins fight with fintech firms over fees to access customer data

An exterior view of the new JPMorgan Chase global headquarters building at 270 Park Avenue on Nov. 13, 2025 in New York City.

Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase has secured deals ensuring it will get paid by the fintech firms responsible for nearly all the data requests made by third-party apps connected to customer bank accounts, CNBC has learned.

The bank has signed updated contracts with fintech middlemen that make up more than 95% of the data pulls on its systems, including Plaid, Yodlee, Morningstar and Akoya, according to JPMorgan spokesman Drew Pusateri.

“We’ve come to agreements that will make the open banking ecosystem safer and more sustainable and allow customers to continue reliably and securely accessing their favorite financial products,” Pusateri said in a statement. “The free market worked.”

The milestone is the latest twist in a long-running dispute between traditional banks and the fintech industry over access to customer accounts. For years, middlemen like Plaid paid nothing to tap bank systems when a customer wanted to use a fintech app like Robinhood to draw funds or check balances.

That dynamic appeared to be enshrined in law in late 2024 when the Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized what is known as the “open-banking rule” requiring banks to share customer data with other financial firms at no cost.

But banks sued to prevent the CFPB rule from taking hold and seemed to gain the upper hand in May after the Trump administration asked a federal court to vacate the rule.

Soon after, JPMorgan — the largest U.S. bank by assets, deposits and branches — reportedly told the middlemen that it would start charging what amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars for access to its customer data.

In response, fintech, crypto and venture capital executives argued that the bank was engaging in “anti-competitive, rent-seeking behavior” that would hurt innovation and consumers’ ability to use popular apps.

After weeks of negotiations between JPMorgan and the middlemen, the bank agreed to lower pricing than it originally proposed, while the fintech middlemen won concessions regarding the servicing of data requests, according to people with knowledge of the talks.

Fintech firms preferred the certainty of locking in data-sharing rates because it is unclear whether the current CFPB, which is in the process of revising the open-banking rule, will favor banks or fintechs, according to a venture capital investor who asked for anonymity to discuss his portfolio companies.

The bank and the fintech firms declined to disclose details about their contracts, including how much the middlemen agreed to pay and how long the deals were in force.

Wider impact

The deals mark a shift in the power dynamic between banks, middlemen and the fintech apps that are increasingly threatening incumbents. More banks are likely to begin charging fintechs for access to their systems, according to industry observers.  

“JPMorgan tends to be a trendsetter. They’re sort of the leader of the pack, so it’s fair to expect that the rest of the major banks will follow,” said Brian Shearer, director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator.

Shearer, who worked at the CFPB under former director Rohit Chopra, said he was worried that the development would create a barrier of entry to nascent startups and ultimately result in higher costs for consumers.

Source: Robinhood

Proponents of the 2024 CFPB rule said it gave consumers control over their financial data and encouraged competition and innovation. Banks including JPMorgan said it exposed them to fraud and unfairly saddled them with the rising costs of maintaining systems increasingly tapped by the middlemen and their clients.  

When Plaid’s deal with JPMorgan was announced in September, the companies issued a dual press release emphasizing the continuity it provided for customers.

But the industry group that Plaid is a part of has harshly criticized the development, signaling that while JPMorgan has won a decisive battle, the ongoing skirmish may yet play out in courts and in the public.

“Introducing prohibitive tolls is anti-competitive, anti-innovation, and flies in the face of the plain reading of the law,” said Penny Lee, CEO of the Financial Technology Association, told CNBC in response to the JPMorgan milestone.

These agreements are not the free market at work, but rather big banks using their market position to capitalize on regulatory uncertainty,” Lee said. “We urge the Trump Administration to uphold the law by maintaining the existing prohibition on data access fees.”

Continue Reading

Trending