Category: specific managers

Posted on

Kalanick says every Lyft trip “is a criminal misdemeanor”

In 2013, when Uber focused on operations using properly-licensed black cars, CEO Travis Kalanick remarked on what he saw as Lyft’s unlawful “ridesharing” approach using ordinary drivers:

I’m like, holy cow, every trip that’s happening—I’m reading the law—every trip that’s happening is a criminal misdemeanor committed by the person driving. I don’t think that’s a good law, but that is the law.

Kalanick explained three sources of cost advantage from Lyft’s unlawful approach: foregoing commercial licenses, foregoing commercial insurance, and thereby accessing a larger pool of potential drivers:

What they were able to do because of no commercial insurance and because of easy access to supply, the cost was really low. You could see a situation where they’d eat you up from the bottom up.

Posted on

Illegal lobbying by former Obama aide David Plouffe

David Plouffe, then Uber’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Strategy (formerly campaign manager for President Barack Obama) lobbied Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel as to requirements for Uber’s operation in that city — but failed to register as a lobbyist as required by law until 90 business days later. In February 2017, Plouffe was fined $90,000 for the violation.

Guided by Plouffe, Emanuel advocated the policies that Uber favored. The Chicago Tribune explains: “When aldermen [Chicago legislators] pushing for the stronger rules, which included fingerprinting drivers, tried to use a parliamentary maneuver to delay the action, Emanuel threatened to adjourn the City Council meeting. In the end, the watered-down version Emanuel preferred remained intact.”

Plouffe’s email discussions with Emanuel were uncovered as part of a lawsuit as to Emanuel’s use of a personal email account to conduct government business.  In settling that lawsuit, Emanuel turned over about 2,700 pages of government-related emails from his personal account.   Plouffe’s email to Emanuel is dated November 20, 2015 – pages 127-129 in this archive.

Posted on

Driver violence towards passengers

Various Uber drivers have attacked passengers. Representative examples: In March 2014, a Chicago passenger sued Uber after her driver locked the car and groped her. In June 2014, a Los Angeles driver kidnapped a woman who had passed out in his car.

In an internal crisis communication message that was accidentally made public, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick blamed the media for suggesting that Uber was liable for driver misconduct.

Posted on

Tracked driver activity on Lyft servers

News site The Information in April 2017 reported that Uber built a program it called “Hell” to track how many Lyft drivers were available, where they were located, and whether they drove for Uber also.  Uber then targeted these drivers with special promotions to encourage them to use Uber only.

By all indications, Uber collected data for “Hell” by connecting to Lyft’s servers in a manner prohibited by Lyft’s Terms of Service.

The Information reported that Uber then-CEO Travis Kalanick personally praised the Hell team, saying that they demonstrated Uber’s culture in their willingness to “hustle” in order to win.

In September 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported the FBI investigating Uber’s “Hell” practices.

Bloomberg reports that Hell was overseen by Joe Sullivan, Chief Security Officer of Uber, through a team formerly known as Competitive Intelligence.

See also the “Surfcam” program whereby Uber tracked data from Grab.

Posted on

Google alleges Uber stole its autonomous car technologies

In a February 2017 lawsuit, Google alleged that Uber stole proprietary Google technology for autonomous cars. Google reported that Anthony Levandowski, an original member of Google’s self-driving car project, downloaded over 14,000 confidential files (9.7GB) pertaining to Google’s designs and testing, and used this information in Otto, a self-driving company that Uber later acquired. Complaint.

When Levandowski refused to testify or otherwise cooperate with litigation, invoking the Fifth Amendment to refuse to incriminate himself, Uber fired him.

Litigation brought by Benchmark Capital indicates that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick knew, before acquiring Otto, about the likelihood that Levandowski had Google materials. In particular, in March 2016, a month before Uber acquired Otto, Uber retained an investigator to assess whether Levandowski and others had Google materials. Benchmark Capital further alleges that Kalanick never shared this information with Uber investors.

Waymo v. Uber litigation docket

Posted on

CEO Travis Kalanick argued with driver

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick feuded with driver Fawzi Kamel (video) over changes at the company.

Kamel flagged Uber’s decision to cut prices and payments to drivers, complaining “I’m bankrupt because of you.” Kalanick replied that the driver was wrong to “blame everything in [his] life on somebody else” and “Some people don’t like to take responsibility for their own shit.”

Kalanick ended the trip by sarcastically wishing the driver good luck.

Kalanick later met with the driver again, reopened the debate, and ultimately made a payment to the driver from his own money.

Posted on

Blocked regulators’ investigations by sending bogus data

Through its “Greyball” system, Uber attempted to identify officials investigating its methods, including noting accounts created from within or near regulators’ offices and rides requested from those areas.  When a user was classified as affiliated with a regulator, Uber intentionally denied that user’s requests, declining to send a driver—preventing the regulator from finding drivers and bringing enforcement actions against drivers or Uber.

The US Department of Justice launched a criminal probe into Uber about this practice.

The New York Times reported that at least 50 people inside Uber knew about these tactics, and that the  program was approved by then-General Counsel Salle Yoo.

Litigation by Uber investor Benchmark Capital reported that, as of August 2017, Uber faced Greyball-related regulatory inquiries in Portland, Oregon; subpoenas from US Attorneys in California and New York; various other city and state inquiries; and an inquiry from the European parliament.

In September 2017, Portland finished its investigation, finding that Uber had used Greyball to block 29 ride requests by 16 government officials whose job it was to regulate Uber.

Portland Bureau of Transportation Audit of Greyball including full audit report

Posted on

Hired a private investigator to investigate litigation adversaries

Uber hired a private investigator to interview friends and colleagues of Stephen Meyer, plaintiff in class action litigation against Uber, as well as Meyer’s attorneys.  Interviewing acquaintances and professional colleagues, the PI falsely claimed to be “profiling top up-and-coming” leaders and conducting “real estate market research.”  When plaintiff’s counsel learned about these inquiries and asked Uber’s counsel whether Uber had hired a PI, Uber attorneys claimed “Whoever is behind these calls, it is not us.”  But as evidence mounted, Uber eventually admitted to having initiated the investigation.

In criticizing Uber’s decision to “hire unlicensed private investigators to conduct secret personal investigation of both the plaintiff and his counsel” as well as the “blatant misrepresentations” and “false pretenses” of the investigation, federal judge Jed Rakoff found “sufficient basis to suspect that Ergo had committed fraud in investigating plaintiff through the use of false pretenses” and that Uber’s instructions had furthered the fraud.  Uber paid an undisclosed sum to plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys to resolve this misconduct.

Rakoff’s decision indicates that Uber’s investigation of Meyer and his attorneys was initiated by Uber then-General Counsel Salle Yoo who sought assistance from Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan.

Private investigator’s report.  Uber staff communicated with private investigator using Wickr, a self-deleting messaging app, though some messages were recovered during subsequent litigation.

Meyer v. Kalanick – litigation docket

Proudly powered by WordPress