Approved: A class action laws lawsuit against the company "Get"

The Central District Court in Lod approved a class action lawsuit against the company "Get" in the amount of NIS 8.3 million, claiming that the company is charging NIS 10 in cancellation fees illegally and that this is an excessive amount.
It is argued that this collection from customers who cancel a taxi ride they have booked, is done in violation of an order controlling the prices of goods and services according to which the maximum price of transportation in a taxi will not exceed the regulated price. A divorce charges for cancellation of a trip, even though this collection is not fixed in the meter and does not form part of the components that were allowed to be collected as "transportation fees" in accordance with the supervision order. It also charges the cancellation fee in violation of traffic regulations which "a person shall not demand and shall not charge or permit another to demand or charge ... any other payment which is not fixed in the fare".
The supervision order defines a cancellation fee in the amount of only NIS 5.2, which is in fact a "booking fee" and not NIS 10 as an actual divorce is charged. Represented in the class action lawsuit are the general public of divorce clients, who were charged a cancellation fee of NIS 10 from November 2015.
GET claims that these are service fees that are intended to deter passengers from booking and canceling trips casually, but it is claimed that it has other means of deterrence such as blocking a credit card for those who use the app unfairly.
The representative plaintiff claims that since the drivers charge NIS 7 out of NIS 10, a cancellation fee, this is a cancellation fee and not a service fee, contrary to what Gaget claims.
Among the allegations, Gaget argued: She is not a taxi driver, so the prohibition on collecting more than the fare does not apply to her. The class-action plaintiff argued that the supervision order prohibits the collection of transportation fees in relation to the person who canceled the trip and is sweeping and applies to any person or group of persons.
According to Get, out of 69 cancellation cases of the class plaintiff he was charged in only 5 cases for service fees. The company also claimed that the plaintiff wanted to intentionally book trips during rush hour and canceled them. Another contention was that these were his wife's orders and therefore he had no cause of action. The court rejected these allegations because the applicant had a joint business with his wife. Yes also argued that there was no connection between the booking fee and the service fee she charged and that the claim amount was excessive because she did not charge for all cancellation cases.
Judge Yehezkel Keener ruled that there was a reasonable possibility that the court would rule that a divorce is not allowed to collect the payment collected by it in cases of travel cancellation by the user. Because it is ostensibly a transportation fee that a divorcee is prohibited from charging for a trip that has not been performed.