New York City

New York-born ride-hail company Juno bites the dust

Juno struggled to compete with other ride-hail companies, despite marketing itself as an ethical alternative.


Juno Shutterstock

Juno, a New York City-based ride-hail company that had difficulty getting out of the twin shadows of Uber and Lyft, has shut down service, parent company Gett announced on Monday. As recently as August of this year, Juno held only 3.1% of the ride-hailing market share in New York City, according to an analysis of data from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. Compare that to Uber’s 69.2% market share, or Lyft’s 23.3%, and it’s not hard to see why Juno struggled to compete, despite marketing itself as an ethical alternative to those companies with a stated mission to “treat drivers with the respect they deserve.”

On Monday, Gett – the Tel Aviv-based ride-hailing company that bought Juno in 2017 – also announced a partnership with Lyft that will allow its corporate customers to continue to use the Gett app in the United States. An email sent by the company on Monday referred riders to Lyft, offering a $25 ride credit to new Lyft customers. 

But in Monday’s announcement, Gett focused on new regulations in New York City that large and small apps alike have complained about, calling them “misguided.” New city regulations include minimum pay for ride-hail drivers and a cap on the issuance of new for-hire vehicles, both of which were first passed in 2018. Juno hasn’t been alone in fighting these regulations, as both the now-defunct company and Lyft filed unsuccessful suits against the minimum pay rules.

The New York Taxi Workers Alliance, a union representing drivers, didn’t mince words about the death of Juno. “Thinking you could build an empire without paying drivers minimum wage – at least until the imaginary driverless cars take over – is maybe why you're not a viable company,” the group tweeted.

For the rest of today's tech news, head over to First Read Tech.

Correction: Lyft filed unsuccessful suits against the minimum pay rules; the original version of this story identified the wrong company.