Get in the KNOW
on LA Startups & Tech
X
Image from Shutterstock
One Card to Rule Them All: LA Metro’s Experiment in a Universal Transit Wallet
Maylin Tu
Maylin Tu is a freelance writer who lives in L.A. She writes about scooters, bikes and micro-mobility. Find her hovering by the cheese at your next local tech mixer.
L.A. Metro is launching the largest experiment in the U.S. to provide 2,000 residents with a seamless transportation payment platform spanning public and private systems.
The agency is opening up applications for its mobility wallet as part of its universal basic mobility (UBM) pilot, helmed by L.A.’s Department of Transportation (LADOT). Metro is seeking applicants from South Los Angeles to apply by November 1. After applicants are selected, the first phase of the pilot will begin within the next few months.
One thousand participants will receive prepaid debit cards which the city will replenish with $150 per month ($1,800 total over the course of a year) to spend on multimodal transportation options in the program’s first phase. The debit card can be used to pay for Metro bus and rail, Metro Micro and 26 municipal transit agencies across L.A. County, as well as private mobility options including shared e-scooters and e-bikes, car share, ride-hailing and taxis. Participants can use funds to pay for rides from companies like Uber or Lyft, but not for personal car expenses such as gas or repairs.
In the second phase set to launch in early 2023, payment will be integrated into L.A.’s TAP card. According to Metro’s The Source, the agency was seeking private mobility operators to integrate with TAPforce, a platform providing “a seamless payment option” for multiple forms of transportation. Metro has yet to announce which private mobility companies will be integrated into TAP for phase two.
One-in-five low-income residents who ride transit don’t own a smartphone. For that reason, Metro plans to provide 200 participants with cell phones and data plans, in addition to the $150 subsidy, according to LADOT Spokesperson Colin Sweeney. The application process for receiving a phone and data plan will take place in-person.
Roughly 30% of the 370,000 residents in South L.A. live below the poverty line, according to LADOT. Studies have shown that low-income households spend a greater percentage of income (28.8%) on transportation compared to wealthier households (9.5%). The goal of the UBM pilot is to provide underserved Angelenos greater access to mobility and economic opportunities.
The agency announced the program in April with components including EV charging stations, workforce training programs, a free EV shuttle, upgrades to bus and cycling infrastructure and an “e-bike library,” which would let users checkout e-bikes.
Funding for the project comes from a $13.8 million grant from the California Air Resources Board and an additional $4 million from the city’s unappropriated balance (UB) fund.
To date, the only parts of the program in operation are the workforce development programs offered by the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator and Los Angeles Trade Technical College, according to LADOT.
Oakland piloted a universal basic mobility program in 2020, in which 500 residents received $300 total (A second phase beginning next month will include 1,000 participants); Bakersfield is piloting a program for 100 disadvantaged youth ages 18 to 24, and Pittsburgh’s 50-person UBM experiment just launched in August.
If South L.A.’s pilot is successful, the city hopes to expand it to the rest of L.A.
“The idea would be, ‘How do we roll it out around the city and then the county?” said Eli Lipmen, executive director of Move LA. “The goal is to stand it up and figure out the mechanics of it.”
From Your Site Articles
- LADOT UBM | LADOT ›
- California Unveils Its Digital Vaccination Record - dot.LA ›
- LA Metro Is Launching a Universal Pass Pilot Program - dot.LA ›
- ‘It’s Too F*&*@! Hard To Ride California Transit’: Agencies Like LA Metro Are Trying To Build a Single Platform For Payment - dot.LA ›
- How LA Metro, Other Agencies Want to Make It Easier to Pay - dot.LA ›
- Will L.A. Bus Riders Finally Get the Shelters They Need? - dot.LA ›
- Will L.A. Bus Riders Finally Get the Shelters They Need? - dot.LA ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Maylin Tu
Maylin Tu is a freelance writer who lives in L.A. She writes about scooters, bikes and micro-mobility. Find her hovering by the cheese at your next local tech mixer.
Why Scrubs Maker FIGS is Being Sued in California Court
10:59 AM | October 19, 2022
'We've Branded an Unbranded Industry': FIGS Co-CEOs Trina Spear and Heather Hasson on Their Epic IPO
Last August, FIGS, the medical scrub startup based in Santa Monica, was sued for false advertising and misleading business practices. This week, the company is in court arguing it didn’t need to rely on any unsavory marketing tactics and that its products sold more because they were better than its competitors.
The lawsuit, brought forth by Strategic Partners Inc. (SPI), a Chatsworth-based competitor that does business as Careismatic Brands, alleges FIGS co-founders Trina Spear and Heather Hasson violated advertising regulations by falsely claiming their scrubs are made to protect the wearer from bacteria or disease through the use of a chemical called Silvadur. In the lawsuit SPI cited the fact that FIGS said this chemical helps its scrubs reduce hospital-acquired infection rates by 66%, which SPI claimed was untrue and misleading.
The exact amount of money SPI is seeking from the suit isn’t clear. But the company did request numerous damages, including the costs of the suit and attorneys’ fees. SPI also asked for compensatory damages plus punitive damages and disgorgement of profits, which means the court could order FIGS to pay back part of the money it made selling its scrubs if the judge rules against them.
“What [FIGS] did is they came up with these false claims so that health care workers would pay premium pricing based on something that didn't exist,” said Sanford Michelman, attorney for SPI. He also said the company “is a get rich quick scheme.”
Unlike FIGS' direct to consumer model, SPI sells through a middleman, licensing out brands to mainly brick and mortar retailers.
Michelman claimed SPI has sources that used to work for FIGS that will testify FIGS’ 66% infection prevention claim wasn’t accurate, including a former stock boy and an infectious disease expert.
A FIGS spokesperson who was in court Tuesday said, however, he anticipated SPI will need to prove specifically that FIGS’ sales increased because of its allegedly misleading marketing, which could be a difficult task for the plaintiffs.
The suit also called into question other elements of FIGS’ business practices, including the company’s promise to donate “hundreds of thousands of scrubs internationally'' as part of its Threads for Threads program. Per the publication of the company’s first video ad for it, the program appears to have been set up in 2013 to donate one pair for every pair sold: The lawsuit alleged, “these misrepresentations regarding donations are part of FIGS’s broader plan to deceive the public into believing that FIGS and FIGS scrubs are special, when they are not special.”
During opening statements, law firms Bird Marella and Munger, Tolles, & Olson argued on behalf of FIGS that SPI uses a similar chemical in its medical clothing.
Back in 2021, FIGS created an entire website to explain its side of the story. On the site, the medical clothing startup called the lawsuit “baseless attacks” from an older competitor that’s simply angry it lost market share to a new upstart and wants to “thwart competition.”
To that end, FIGS’ chief legal officer said the lawsuit was an attempt by SPI to “stifle” competition and drive it out of the market. He called the litigation “absurd” and said it won’t hold up in court.
This is a developing story. Have a tip? Contact Samson Amore securely via Signal at 401.287.5543 or Samsonamore@dot.LA.
From Your Site Articles
- Rivian Shareholder Sues Over Electric Vehicle Pricing Saga - dot.LA ›
- FIGS Tops Off Banner Week for SoCal IPOs - dot.LA ›
- FIGS CEOs Trina Spear and Heather Hasson on Their Epic IPO - dot ... ›
- MedTech Company FIGS Wins The Lawsuit Against Them - dot.LA ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read moreShow less
Samson Amore
Samson Amore is a reporter for dot.LA. He holds a degree in journalism from Emerson College. Send tips or pitches to samsonamore@dot.la and find him on Twitter @Samsonamore.
https://twitter.com/samsonamore
samsonamore@dot.la
People Who Bought the LA Times NFT Claim the Newspaper Scammed Them
04:00 AM | January 31, 2023
Last year, on the day of the 2022 Super Bowl, the Los Angeles Times announced they would be selling limited-edition collectible NFTs. At the time, a local newspaper getting into the NFT game seemed like an unlikely twist. But given that other publishing brands – including TIME Magazine and the New York Times – jumped headfirst into the hype a year prior, it wasn’t so surprising.
But since the announcement, buyers in the official Discord server set up by the Times alleged the entire project was a scam. “You and your team have no credibility,” one person said of the LA Times last June. “Just admit that we were scammed and our NFT's are worthless.”
The Times sold most of the NFTs for around $30. But the most expensive, a digital copy of the LA Times’ front page from Feb. 13 commemorating the Ram’s win, received bids as high as $4,000.
The problems with the Times’ NFT drop, however, began early. On the day the project went live, some users chimed in to the Discord to question GuardianLink, the Indian blockchain company tapped to set up the infrastructure for selling the NFTs. GuardianLink also operates the exchange BeyondLife.club, where the NFTs were traded.
Within a day of the launch, buyers also expressed concerns about their ability to resell the NFTs, since they were being traded on a foreign exchange where the NFL’s brand carries less heft.
Some read the project’s fine print, which stated that “you shall have the limited ability to sell or transfer your LA Times NFT,” and one user in the Discord noted that the sale would be voided and the owner of the NFT could lose their license if they tried to sell it on another platform. Many users expressed the desire to trade on OpenSea, a popular North American NFT exchange, instead.
In response to these concerns, one moderator from GuardianLink promised users on Feb. 14, 2022 that they would “soon” be able to trade their NFTs on other marketplaces, a promise that the buyers on Discord claim never came to fruition.
As one potential buyer pointed out in the Discord, “this isn't how NFTs work, or any merch/collectives actually. Since when [does] the company you buy something from keep the rights to control what you do with it.”
In the months after the announcement, skepticism morphed into concern, then outright anger as mods stopped responding to inquiries last September. “Bunch of crooks,” one buyer wrote in the Discord following the radio silence. “None of them give a s—.”
That same month, another Discord user said, “mods are not even online on this server. No communication… Just dead. We have been royally rugged!!”
One buyer claimed their only recourse was to take “legal action.” Though to date, no one has filed suit against the Times with regard to this situation.
It’s unclear how much total money was lost on the Times’ NFT sale. Vishal Master, a buyer from India, told dot.LA he lost $150, adding that he bought several NFTs ranging from $30- $50. Another buyer in the Discord said last June they lost $100.
According to LA Times spokesperson Hillary Manning, the blame resides with the crypto market. “While the offering was well-received, the overall NFT market declined – and later crashed – after we concluded the auction,” Manning said. “We understand the disappointment the NFT holders have experienced and have worked with our partner in good faith to address the feedback they received from holders, specifically by providing other items of value.”
Those items, according to Manning, included free digital subscriptions to the LA Times and discounts to its online store and were granted as a way to provide “other items of value” to disgruntled buyers.
Master, however, said he’d never heard from the Times about any of this. “Many tried but gave up” getting refunds, he added. “That NFT flopped and it surely was to dupe people [out of] money.”
In addition, the Times also offered buyers an additional free NFT. Master said he never received the free NFT either. Adding that even if he had, he and other buyers wouldn’t be able to sell those NFTs since they were still offered on GuardianLink’s BeyondLife platform. Which he added had meager demand, because the exchange is based in Asia, where fewer people have heard of the LA Times.
Ultimately, the ordeal caused some people in the Discord to question whether or not the trusted newspaper brand was even affiliated with the project. That said, the site where the NFTs were sold remains live and the Times appears to still be selling them.Read moreShow less
Samson Amore
Samson Amore is a reporter for dot.LA. He holds a degree in journalism from Emerson College. Send tips or pitches to samsonamore@dot.la and find him on Twitter @Samsonamore.
https://twitter.com/samsonamore
samsonamore@dot.la
RELATEDTRENDING
LA TECH JOBS