Los Angeles Times - 13.08.2019

C4 TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2019 LATIMES.COM/BUSINESS

•Discrimination

•Harassment

•WrongfulTermination

•Retaliation•Disability

•Pregnancy Leave

9255 Sunset Blvd.#411, LA 90069

http://www.californialaborlawattorney.com

Call forFREEConsultation

310-273-

WORKPLACE

RIGHTS

NO RECOVERY=NOFEE

SERIOUS INJURYLAWYERS

ScottBrickell, ESQ.

!Auto Accidents!WrongfulDeath

!Rear EndCrashes

!DUI Victims!BrainInjuries

!AllTy pes ofCases!Se Habla Español

!NoRecovery,NoFees

BRICKELL&MEZA

http://www.brickellmeza.com

HELPING VICTIMS

FOROVER 30 YEARS

MAINOFFICEBEVERLYHILLS

FAST ANSWERS

(310) 858-

Free Case Evaluation

5

seriousinjurycases.com

BRICKELL &ASSOC.

SERIOUS INJURY LAWYERS

Callfor Free Consultation

818-990-

15303VenturaBlvd.,Suite

ShermanOaks,CA

Call for Free Consultation

818-990-

• BREACH OF CONTRACT
  & FRAUD LAWSUITS


• PARTNER & SHAREHOLDER
  DISPUTES


• EMPLOYMENT LAWSUITS


• LEASE DISPUTES


• PREP OFAGREEMENTS

with 30 yrs. exp. specializing in

BUSINESS & LITIGATION

ATTORNEY

REFINISHING OF:REFINISHING OF:

TUBS• TILES •SINKS •FIBERGLASS

$

50

COUPON

$

249

$

249

$

249

$

249

ValidUntil

Tub Only Reg. $

OFCALIFORNIA

DO BUSINESS WITH A

LICENSED CONTRACTOR

1-800-882-

http://www.bathtubkingsocal.com

Lic.#

Promo Code: LATPD Tub Only Reg. $

LAA7608648-

249

Until

$

259

$$

5050

COUPONCOUPON

8/31/

ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS

BATHTUBS

facebook.com/latimes

To advertise

in this directory,goto

or call 1.800.528.4637,ext.

http://www.latimes.com/placebpsdad,

But such “interoperabil-
ity” among agencies, as well
as with the Department of
Motor Vehicles, is impor-
tant for toll enforcement, so
it seems appropriate to
clarify that they have a need
to communicate with one
another.
In that sense, a degree of
retroactive immunity is
perhaps warranted. I sus-
pect most of us have no
problem with going after toll
cheats.
However, not all privacy
violations alleged in the
lawsuits involve technical
operations. Some involve
questionable marketing
practices, such as using
people’s transit data to try
to sell them things.
Lori Myers, 48, who is
suing several Orange
County transit agencies,
told me she’s received nu-
merous promotions via
email for local businesses —
promotions that she sus-
pects are related to her daily
travels.
“The emails always came
after I used toll roads,” she
said. “It seems very suspi-
cious.”
However, Kit Cole,
spokeswoman for the
Transportation Corridor
Agencies, which operates
FasTrak services in Orange
County, insisted that any
such promotions were part
of a toll-road rewards pro-
gram, and FasTrak users
need to give permission
before they receive market-
ing pitches.
“If you don’t opt in, you
don’t receive the promo-
tions,” she said.
Myers, a lawyer, said she
never opted in. “I’d defi-
nitely remember.”
Randy Rentschler,
spokesman for the Bay Area
Toll Authority who also is
representing Southern
California agencies on this
matter, said full retroactive
immunity is necessary.
“We need this legislation
because we’re spending
millions of dollars on law-
suits that we think are friv-
olous,” he said.
I get what he’s saying on
the interoperability ques-
tion. But what about mar-

keting pitches?

“We don’t do that,”

Rentschler insisted. “Just

because we’re being ac-

cused of things, that doesn’t

make them true.”

OK, so why do you need

retroactive immunity for

privacy violations you didn’t

commit?

Rentschler said they just

do. “I’m not going to write

legislation in the news-

paper,” he added.

Section 31490 of the

state’s Streets and High-

ways Code stipulates that

“products and services” can

be marketed to transponder

subscribers using person-

ally identifiable information

“provided that the trans-

portation agency has re-

ceived the subscriber’s

express written consent to

receive the communica-

tions.”

Allen’s bill, as currently

written, would loosen that.

It would allow such commu-

nications with “affirmative

electronic consent.”

What that means is that

instead of making consum-

ers go through the hassle of

providing advance “written

consent” for marketing —

something very few people

would do — “electronic

consent” could be obtained

by, say, having people check

a box online, which can

easily be done by mistake.

I pointed this out to

Allen.

“I’ll look at that,” he

pledged. “I’m not interested

in allowing transit agencies

to do a lot of marketing. It’s

very easy to check a box you

didn’t mean to check.”

Then there’s the way

Allen introduced his bill. He

took a relatively benign bill

on voter information guides

that had received Senate

approval, stripped out the

existing language, and

replaced it with his

highly complex transit

legislation.

The Senate bill then

went to the Assembly

without any prior public

debate.

This process is called

“gut and amend,” and it

happens frequently in Sac-

ramento to expedite legisla-

tion. Still, it’s not an appeal-

ing way for important issues

to be treated, especially

ones with significant pri-

vacy implications.

Allen told me he just

used this process to act

quickly, and he’s confident

his legislation will receive

sufficient scrutiny by the

Assembly and Senate.

“We can’t be in a situa-

tion where there could be

billions of dollars in liability

just because transit agen-

cies shared names and

addresses with one anoth-

er,” he said.

Fair enough. It does no

one any favors for Cali-

fornia’s transit agencies —

and taxpayers — to be in

legal jeopardy just because

existing law wasn’t written

clearly enough to reflect

how they need to do busi-

ness.

But consumer advocates

think the transit agencies

are asking for too much.

“Going forward, there

should be strict limits on

information they can collect

and share,” said Jamie

Court, president of Con-

sumer Watchdog, a Los

Angeles advocacy group.

“Looking backward,” he

said, “there shouldn’t be

retroactive immunity. There

should be a settlement

brokered that addresses

past violations.”

I agree, at least in re-

gards to possibly illegal

marketing.

The transit agencies say

they did nothing wrong.

So they have nothing to

worry about. Right?

David Lazarus’ column runs

Tuesdays and Fridays. He

also can be seen daily on

KTLA-TV Channel 5 and

followed on Twitter

@Davidlaz. Send your tips

or feedback to david.lazarus

@latimes.com.

Fast-tracking immunity for toll agencies

[L azarus,from C1]

CALIFORNIA ISinterlaced with toll roads and bridges. Orange County has the largest network of toll roads, with over 330,000 daily trips.

Glenn KoenigLos Angeles Times

ern California, Elkadi said.

For example, Los Angeles

International Airport

charges ride-hailing compa-

nies $4 per drop-off or

pickup.

In an Aug. 8 letter ad-

dressed to Elkadi, an Uber

executive said that the com-

pany had “no other option

but to terminate at this

time” and that the Ontario

airport’s new fee for ride-

hailing companies was the

highest in the U.S. for an air-

port of its size.

Elkadi said in an inter-

view that the airport’s size

was irrelevantand that On-

tario airport officials didn’t

believe a fee increase was

“completely out of bounds.”

“It happens at airports

across the entire country,”

he said. “This is not some

random thing that hap-

pened. For us, it’s just a mat-

ter of looking at our business

and how we are continuously

going to improve our airport

... and what investments are

going to be made.”

Uber and Lyft began

serving the Ontario airport

in July 2017. That fiscal year,

which ended in June 2018,

the ride-hailing companies

paid the airport a combined

$807,000 in fees. (The same

year, they paid LAX $44.

million in fees.) In the year

that ended this June, they

paid the Ontario airport

about $1.3 million in fees,

Elkadi said.

Uber said in its letter to

Elkadi that it wanted to have

a “meaningful dialogue”

with airport officials and

come to a “mutually benefi-

cial agreement.”

Ontario airport officials

reached out to Uber on Fri-

day to request a meeting but

had not gotten a response as

of Monday morning, Elkadi

said. In the meantime, oper-

ations at the airport will

“continue as planned” with-

out the ride-hailing giant, he

said. Lyft, Uber’s main com-

petitor, will continue to offer

rides there, he said.

Lyft may try to capitalize

on the situation by seizing

some of Uber’s abandoned

market share there, said

Brad Erickson, a senior re-

search analyst at Needham

&Co.

But in Uber’s case, “if

they find the economics of

this new arrangement to be

onerous, there was probably

a reason behind it,” he said.

The Ontario airport

would probably suffer more

from Uber’s absence than

Uber would — but Erickson

said he didn’t see the rift be-

tween the ride-hailing giant

and the airport as “a perma-

nent type of situation.”

The Associated Press was

used in compiling this

report.

Uber to end service to Ontario

LYFT MAY TRYto capitalize on Uber’s withdrawal from Ontario International

Airport by seizing some of its abandoned market share there, an analyst says.

Allen J. SchabenLos Angeles Times

[Uber,from C1]

Afederal judge has re-

inforced an order for Ameri-

can Airlines Group Inc. me-

chanics and other airport

ramp workers to end an al-

leged work slowdown that

the carrier said has had a

“devastating effect” on

flights during the busy sum-

mer travel season.

U.S. District Judge John

McBryde in Fort Worth on

Monday made permanent

an earlier order directing

the TWU-IAM Assn. to stop

encouraging workers to

delay aircraft repairs and

other work and reject over-

time or out-of-town assign-

ments.

“The concerted job ac-

tion of defendants’ members

has caused flight delays and

cancellations, inconvenienc-

ing the public and disrupt-

ing commerce,” the judge

wrote in a ruling.

American Airlines sued

the union in late May, argu-

ing that the union was using

the slowdown to snarl opera-

tions during a key travel pe-

riod and to pressure the air-

line into a new contract

agreement.

More than 640 flights

were canceled, affecting

88,000 passengers, during

two months of the slow-

down, and workers contin-

ued to cause major disrup-

tions after McBryde’s initial

order in June, the carrier

said.

The union group denied

the claims at a one-day trial

July 1, saying the airline

couldn’t point to a specific

flight that was canceled as a

result of union activity or a

single mechanic who had

worked slowly.

The TWU-IAM Assn. was

created after the 2013 merger

of American Airlines and US

Airways to represent the

Transport Workers Union of

America and International

Assn. of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers in con-

tract talks.

The association and the

airline haven’t been able to

agree on such issues as com-

pensation, health and retire-

ment benefits, and limits on

outsourcing work in 3½

years of negotiations.

Talks were suspended

April 25 by federal mediators

because of a lack of prog-

ress.

Judge sides with American Airlines

Union workers are

ordered to end ‘job

action’ blamed for

flight delays and

cancellations.

bloomberg