> The legal team's priority is minimizing legal liability.
If that were literally true Uber wouldn't currently exist. They were knowingly breaking laws and arguably continue to do so.
Uber's lawyers are interested in advocating for Uber, period. In most organizations the legal department can and will be overridden when it's in the company's financial interests. Saying that something is non-negotiable is the oldest negotiating tactic in the book. If Uber refuses to bargain over a settlement it's because (a) you're not bargaining hard enough or (b) they're prepared to go to court. You can never know without forcing the issue.
The Anglo-American legal system, and to a lesser extent most other legal systems, principally evolved to adjudicate disputes among aristocrats and merchants. Neither group is shy about advocating for themselves. If they want the maximum benefit of the law, neither should regular individuals be shy.
And I am 100% sure the impetus was not from the legal team.
That was from the business strategy and distribution folks. And then legal does the best they can with what they have.
Point being.... Don't be surprised by unoptimal actions if they are local optimums for the people involved. Thus the overreaching contract for $100 incident.
It is true. The part that makes it consistent with Uber's flouting of the law is that there's another team above the legal team, and that team's job is to find ways to maximize income.
It's a function of priority: make money > minimize legal liability > satisfy customers.
If that were literally true Uber wouldn't currently exist. They were knowingly breaking laws and arguably continue to do so.
Uber's lawyers are interested in advocating for Uber, period. In most organizations the legal department can and will be overridden when it's in the company's financial interests. Saying that something is non-negotiable is the oldest negotiating tactic in the book. If Uber refuses to bargain over a settlement it's because (a) you're not bargaining hard enough or (b) they're prepared to go to court. You can never know without forcing the issue.
The Anglo-American legal system, and to a lesser extent most other legal systems, principally evolved to adjudicate disputes among aristocrats and merchants. Neither group is shy about advocating for themselves. If they want the maximum benefit of the law, neither should regular individuals be shy.