California – Page 2 – Uber Scandals

June 14, 2017November 23, 2017

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

June 14, 2017September 28, 2017

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

June 14, 2017June 20, 2017

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.

June 14, 2017July 10, 2017

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.