All

Posted on

Continued operation when ordered to cease

In multiple cities, Uber continued operation despite duly-empowered regulators ordering it to cease.

For example, in litigation, the City of San Francisco and City of Los Angeles reported a 2010 incident in which the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency noted that Uber’s system for “measure[ing] time and distance” had not been submitted to appropriate regulators for testing and approval, contrary to applicable law.  Four years later, Uber had still not done so and, the cities alleged, was in violation of the law each time it used its unapproved technology.

More details coming soon.

Posted on

Untrue or misleading representations about safety measures

In litigation, the City of San Francisco and City of Los Angeles alleged that Uber falsely claimed to offer the “safest ride on the road” with the “strictest safety standards possible,” which, the cities argued, was “likely to mislead consumers into believing Uber does everything it can to ensure their safety” when in fact better methods were available.

The cities further alleged that Uber’s claim to be “doing everything we can to make Uber the safest experience on the road” was inconsistent with the company’s lobbying against certain safety requirements then being discussed in the California legislature.

The People Of The State Of California v. Uber Technologies Inc A Delaware Corporation Et Al – litigation docket

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

Promised to cease service at LAX and SFO, but continued

In litigation, the City of San Francisco and City of Los Angeles reported that Uber in January 2013 agreed with the California Public Utilities Commission not to transport passengers onto airport property unless granted permission by the relevant airport authority.  Uber obtained no such permission from Los Angeles International Airport or San Francisco International Airport as of December 2014.  Despite the CPUC agreement and a cease-and-desist letter from the San Francisco International Airport, Uber continued operation.  The cities described Uber’s conduct as “intransigent refusal” to follow the law.

Posted on

Arbitration clauses repeatedly criticized by federal judges

Multiple judges criticized Uber’s requirement that passengers and drivers resolve disputes only in arbitration, foregoing lawsuits, group lawsuits such as class actions, trial by jury, and other standard legal protections.

In Meyer v. Uber, Judge Rakoff remarked that Uber’s arbitration requirement is “by no means prominently displayed on Uber’s registration screen” and that the presentation of the requirement is “obscure” and “inconspicuous” (2016 WL 4073012 at *8).

In Mohamed v. Uber, Judge Chen repeatedly criticized Uber’s arbitration requirement, finding it “both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable as a matter of California law.” Among other concerns, Chen noted that the arbitration clause required drivers to pay half the cost of arbitration, that confidentiality clauses disproportionately benefited Uber, that a carve-out for intellectual property claims solely benefited Uber, and that Uber retained a right of unilateral modification.  Chen later reviewed Uber’s proposed revision, found it unsatisfactory, and insisted on further revisions.  Chen also criticized Uber’s communication with drivers about the arbitration clause under litigation, without court approval.

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

Posted on

Charged nonexistent “Airport Fee Toll” for journeys to SFO

Through October 2014, Uber charged passengers a $4.00 “Airport Fee Toll” to travel to San Francisco International Airport, although there was no such fee charged by the airport, city, or anyone else.  The city reported that some drivers (though by all indications not many) had permission to operate commercially at SFO, but that they paid $3.85 at most in fees to SFO. Uber always charged more—indeed, as much as $8 if two passengers shared an UberPool vehicle to SFO.

Posted on

Charged nonexistent “Logan Massport Surcharge & Toll”

In 2013-2014, Uber charged a nonexistent $8.75 “Logan Massport Surcharge & Toll” for rides to or from Boston’s Logan airport.  Uber’s web site said was to “cover… Massport fees and other costs related to airport trips.”  But neither Massport nor Logan airport charged any such fees.  Furthermore, Uber charged an “East Boston Toll” of $5.25, but the largest toll any UberX driver was actually obliged to pay was $3.50.  Uber reimbursed drivers for the actual toll and retained the remainder.

Cullinane et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. No. 1:14-cv-14750-DPW. Massachusetts District Court. December 30, 2014.  Complaint.  Supreme Court briefing as to Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and avoid litigation (also restating and summarizing merits of the case).

Proudly powered by WordPress