A May 2015 change in Uber’s privacy policy allows the company to access users’ locations even when the app is running in the background. Uber described this as “get[ting] people on their way more quickly.” But it also sharply increased the private information sent to Uber.
Details in a 2015 complaint from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, submitted to the FTC. Recode in June 2017 reported the FTC opening an inquiry.
In June 2017, Uber was fined $98,000 for underreporting how much it spent on lobbying in New York, having failed to report $6.3 million of expenditure in its 2015-2016 registration.
Fortune reports that Uber’s engineering team is just 15.1% women — calling that figure “bad–even by tech industry standards.” (Compare Facebook at 17%, Google at 19%, Apple at 23%, and Airbnb at 26%.)
In February 2017, the New York Times reported misconduct by Uber employees: A manager groped a female co-worker’s breasts at a company retreat, a director shouted a homophobic slur at a subordinate, a manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee with a baseball bat, employees used cocaine at private parties, and an employee hijacked a shuttle bus and took it for a joy ride.
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.
Multiple blind passengers reported Uber drivers refusing to transport them and their service dogs.
A key lawsuit challenging Uber’s treatment of blind passengers was National Federation of the Blind of California, et a., v. Uber Technologies, Inc.: Second Amended Complaint. Decision denying Uber’s motion to dismiss (including finding that Uber may be liable under the public accommodation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act). Settlement agreement. Other case documents.
After an unnamed customer reported being raped by an Uber driver in India in December 2014, Uber executive Eric Alexander obtained her medical records and showed them to CEO Travis Kalanick and SVP Emil Michael. As of June 2017, Alexander had left Uber.
In a June 2017 lawsuit, the customer filed a lawsuit against Uber as well as Alexander, Kalanick, and Michael for intrusion into private affairs, public disclosure of private facts, and defamation. In addition to noting the impropriety of Uber managers obtaining and examining her medical records without her consent, she flagged the inconsistency between Uber’s public claims (“We will do everything … to help bring this perpetrator to justice and to support the victim”) and its actual action.
Austin, Texas, voters in May 2016 chose to retain an ordinance that required fingerprinting of Uber’s drivers, among other regulations. Rather than comply, Uber and Lyft ceased operations in Austin, leaving a void filled by smaller competitors.
In a meeting about the prevalence of sexism within Uber, board member David Bonderman made a joke about gender stereotypes. He resigned the same day. Details.
Uber employees visited a South Korean escort bar.
When one member of the party later complained, Uber SVP of Business Emil Michael contacted Gabi Holzwarth (who had been dating Kalanick at the time) — asking that she tell anyone who asked that it was just karaoke. She refused, taking his request for a cover-up as impetus to discuss the incident publicly.