In an interaction captured in video by a passenger, a Leeds, UK Uber driver decline refused to transport a passenger in a wheelchair. The passenger reported that the driver said “Disabled people need disabled car[s]” and drove off.
Prohibited pricing practices in India
In an August 2017 decision, a New Delhi magistrate held that Uber, as well as local competitor Ola, had violated the Motor Vehicles Act by charging prices other than those specified by law. See Section 67(d).
The decision resulted from a complaint filed by a non-government organization, Nyayabhoomi, which also alleged other violations: vehicles with tourist permits providing services on point-to-point basis in violation of law; running on diesel fuel in violation of orders from the Supreme Court of India.
Knowingly leased recalled vehicles to drivers in Singapore
Uber knowingly leased recalled vehicles to its drivers in Singapore. A Wall Street Journal report (paid subscription required) describes a driver whose vehicle caught fire, due to the problem fixed by the recall, just after a passenger got out. WSJ explains:
News of the fire rippled through Uber’s Singapore office after its insurance provider said it wouldn’t cover the damage because of the known recall, emails show. Word reached Uber’s San Francisco executives two days later, emails show.
Uber’s lawyers in Singapore began assessing the legal liability, including possibly violating driver contracts for supplying faulty cars and failing to immediately inform the Land Transport Authority about the defective cars, emails show. “There is clearly a large safety/responsible actor/brand integrity/PR issue” for Uber, an internal report read.
Additional coverage from TechCrunch.
Inferior access to passengers who use wheelchairs (Chicago)
An October 2016 complaint, filed by the nonprofit Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago, criticized Uber’s shortage of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, alleging that the few accessible vehicles were rarely available, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Inferior access to passengers who use wheelchairs (New York City)
A July 2017 complaint, filed by the nonprofit legal group Disability Rights Advocates in New York, criticized Uber’s failure to include wheelchair-accessible vehicles in its standard UberX fleet, claiming that 99.9% of Uber’s vehicles were inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities, in violation of New York’s anti-discrimination laws.
The lawsuit alleged that Uber riders who need wheelchair-accessible vehicles face significantly longer wait times than other passengers, and that at some periods and in some places, no wheelchair-accessible vehicles are available at all.
The lawsuit further alleged that passengers attempting to use Uber’s accessible service face extended wait times, or are denied access to
the service altogether, which the plaintiffs said reveals that the accessible service was “window-dressing designed to avoid government regulation and legal requirements” and insufficient under law.
Charged cancellation fees to passengers when drivers cancelled
Numerous passengers reported being charged cancellation fees when drivers cancelled. Some reported that Uber refunded the fee when they complained, while others said they had trouble contacting Uber or reaching an appropriate resolution.
Overcharged commissions to Philadelphia drivers
Between August 26, 2015 and March 2, 2017, Uber overcharged UberBlack drivers a rate of 25% rather than 20% as promised by contract. Philly.com reported an estimate of $4.3 million accrued by Uber during this period.
Overcharged commissions to New York drivers
For New York drivers, Uber took its commission based on gross fares including state taxes, rather than net fares after deduction of taxes. The New York Times estimated that this overcharged New York drivers by more than $200 million — and increased Uber’s revenue by the same amount.
A subsequent New York Times analysis compared Uber’s tax and billing practices across jurisdictions, examining receipts to assess irregularities and comparing changing contract language to understand Uber’s shifting approach.
Applied nonexpiring Uber credits before expiring Amex Platinum credits
In a benefit to American Express Platinum cardholders, Uber offered $15/month of credit. But Uber applied its own credits (nonexpiring credits for customer service problems, drivers taking long routes, and similar service shortfalls) before tapping the expiring Amex credits — to a customer’s detriment, because a customer would always prefer to use the expiring credit first.
Inconsistent positions as to driver employment status
Uber largely argues that drivers are not employees, allowing Uber to avoid paying payroll tax, providing workers’ compensation insurance, reimbursing employment-related expenses, and more.
But when Uber was sued for sending unsolicited text messages recruiting drivers, without recipients’ consent, Uber defended the messages on the grounds that they were offers of employment, which under federal law can be sent without a recipient’s consent.