Suspended Uber Teen service rather than comply with CPUC requirements

In February 2024, Uber launched Uber Teen service without the requirements that regulator CPUC had mandated.  When CPUC reiterated and clarified the requirements, Uber suspended the service.

As part of suspending Uber Teen, Uber contacted its users, encouraging them to complain to CPUC to voice their disappointment.  Uber said CPUC had made “new and onerous changes” which left Uber “no choice” except to suspend service.  Ben Edelman argues that Uber could have complied, and had ample time to do so.

Alexander sued Whetstone but lost

In September 2018, Eric Alexander filed suit against Rachel Whetstone, alleging that she had violated a reciprocal non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Uber. In particular, Alexander alleged that Whetstone spread false, misleading, and disparaging information about Alexander’s response to the rape in India — which he says were the cause of his termination from Uber. Alexander also accused Whetstone of making a variety of racist comments, claimed that Whetstone incorrectly asserted he stole the rape victim’s medical file and bribed Indian authorities to get that file, and claimed that Whetstone said she would “ruin [his] career” by telling investigator Eric Holder about supposed misconduct.  Alexander argued that these statements were false and defamatory.

Whetstone argued, among other things, that a severance agreement required all disputes to be resolved through arbitration, not litigation. The court granted her motion to compel arbitration. In February 2023, the court entered judgment for Whetstone.

Fired Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p.396) reports new Uber chief legal officer Tony West fired Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan for the 2016 incident in which Sullivan paid a hacker who had infiltrated Uber systems.  In West’s view, this was an improper payment, and Sullivan should have sought legal advice and informed authorities of the breach.  In Sullivan’s view, paying a hacker was legitimate.

Uber asked Sullivan to sign a non-disparagement agreement in exchange for a severance payment. When Sullivan refused to sign, Uber leaked the story to a reporter, calling the payment a cover-up operation to pay off hackers and hide evidence from consumers.  West’s view was vindicated when Sullivan was convicted of federal charges in 2022.

Chief Security Officer Convicted of Obstruction

A federal jury convicted Joe Sullivan, former Chief Security Officer of Uber, for obstructing FTC proceedings in connection with his attempted cover-up of a 2016 hack of Uber.  See the 2016 incident in which Sullivan paid a hacker who had infiltrated Uber systems.

A US Attorney’s Office press release explains:

[S]hortly after learning the extent of the 2016 breach and rather than reporting it to the FTC, any other authorities, or Uber’s users, Sullivan executed a scheme to prevent any knowledge of the breach from reaching the FTC. For example, Sullivan told a subordinate that they “can’t let this get out,” instructed them that the information needed to be “tightly controlled,” and that the story outside of the security group was to be that “this investigation does not exist.” Sullivan then arranged to pay off the hackers in exchange for them signing non-disclosure agreements in which the hackers promised not to reveal the hack to anyone, and also contained the false representation that the hackers did not take or store any data in their hack. Uber paid the hackers $100,000 in bitcoin in December 2016, despite the fact that the hackers had refused to provide their true names. Uber was ultimately able to identify the two hackers in January of 2017 and required them to execute new copies of the non-disclosure agreements in their true names and emphasized that they were not allowed to talk about the hack to anyone else. …

The evidence showed that, despite knowing in great detail that Uber had suffered another data breach directly responsive to the FTC’s inquiry, Sullivan continued to work with the Uber lawyers handling or overseeing that inquiry, including the General Counsel of Uber, and never mentioned the incident to them. Instead, he touted the work that he and his team had done on data security. Uber ultimately entered into a preliminary settlement with the FTC in summer 2016, supported fully by Sullivan, without disclosing the 2016 data breach to the FTC.

In Fall 2017, Uber’s new management began investigating facts surrounding the 2016 data breach. When asked by Uber’s new CEO that had happened, Sullivan lied, falsely telling the CEO that the hackers had only been paid after they were identified and deleting from a draft summary prepared by one of his reports that the hack had involved personally identifying information and a very large quantity of user data. Sullivan lied again to Uber’s outside lawyers conducting an investigation into the incident. Nonetheless, the truth about the breach was ultimately discovered by Uber’s new management, which disclosed the breach publicly, and to the FTC, in November 2017. …

In finding Sullivan guilty, the jury concluded he obstructed justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and that he committed misprision of felony (i.e., knew that a federal felony had been committed and took affirmative steps to conceal that felony), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4.

In 2003, Sullivan was sentenced to three years’ probation and a $50,000 fine.

Flawed sequencing in Khosrowshahi hiring, and generous compensation

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p.389) reports that the public had learned that Uber’s board wanted Khosrowshahi as its next CEO — before he and the company had agreed on terms.  As a result, Khosrowshahi was in a particularly strong position to negotiate high payment.

Isaac reports that if Khosrowshahi was able to take Uber public by the end of 2019 at a valuation of $120 billion, he would be paid more than $100 million. But when Uber went public, its IPO price was $45 per share, and it sank as low as $22 in both 2020 and 2022.

Kalanick attempted to name two new directors

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p.388) reports that, in September 2017 (after being ousted as CEO), Travis Kalanick tried to stack the board with supporters. He relied on an amendment to Uber’s charter that allowed him to name two new directors. But at the same time, new investor SoftBank received six new directors.  With those new directors plus an end to Kalanick’s shares with ten-to-one preferred voting rights, Kalanick no longer had control.

Investor Benchmark used controversial tactics to favor its preferred CEO candidate

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 385) reports that during CEO selection discussions, board member and Benchmark partner Matt Cohler indicated that if the board voted for his firm’s preferred candidate (Meg Whitman), his firm would drop its lawsuit against Kalanick — a lawsuit which other board members perceived was harming the company.  Other board members felt this was “brinksmanship”, “holding the board hostage to approve the candidate of [Benchmark’s] choice” rather than seeking the best candidate on the merits.  Ultimately Cohler’s tactic failed, in that the next ballot brought a shift away from Whitman in favor of Khosrowshahi.