We're back in meme territory today, with the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion in Abramyan v. Georgia, No. No. S17A0004 (May 15, 2017), a case about takings, taxi medallions, and (you guessed it), ridesharing and the "sharing economy."
After the Georgia legislature adopted a statute that made it easier for ridesharing services to operate by limiting the power of local governments to regulate ridesharing and taxi services, owners of taxi medallions sue, alleging this was a taking of their property, the taxi medallions.
This claim fared as well as similar claims in other courts (see here and here, for example), meaning the trial court dismissed and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. No property interest, no taking.
The court's opinion, which is short (9 pages of large font type) is a quick read, and the bottom line rationale is that the taxi medallions didn't give them an "unalterable monopoly" on vehicles for hire:
Further, even if this Court were to assume arguendo that former OCGA § 36-60-25 (a) and the regulatory scheme enacted by the City of Atlanta – which, together, control the application, transferability, use, renewal, and revocation of CPNCs [taxi medallions], as well as permit CPNC holders to use their medallions as collateral for a secured loan – created a protected property right, the harm about which Appellants complain is not amongst the rights associated with the taxi medallion.
Slip op. at 6. Yes, a medallion is a monopoly of sorts, but it isn't one that is limited in size. The regulating municipality can always increase the number of medallions, even if that "waters down" the value of the existing medallions. Id. at 7. And that's what happened here. Dismissal affirmed.
We recently spoke about this issue at the University of Hawaii Law Review's sharing economy symposium, and we're in the process of writing an article about takings and taxis and ridesharing services. Stay tuned.
Abramyan v. Georgia, No. S17A0004 (Ga. May 15, 2017)
