“Upfront pricing” disputes

Uber “upfront pricing” nets out in Uber’s favor, increasing effective fees charged to drivers.  Details from Rideshare Guy.

In screenshots and details at Quartz, drivers show some specifics. For example, on one ride, the passenger paid $31.02, yet Uber told the driver that the passenger’s fare was $26.96, which led to a net payment to the driver of $17.05 (net of Uber’s fee, tax, and other charges). In other examples, Uber charged the passenger $41.86 but told the driver the fare was $34.85; and $25.65 versus $22.03. In each of these examples, Uber’s statement to the driver about the passenger’s “fare” appears to have been affirmatively false, as the true fare was more.

Underpaid New York drivers

By retaining commissions 2.6% beyond the amount specified in the applicable contract, Uber underpaid drivers in New York.  Jim Conigliaro, founder of the Independent Drivers’ Guild, called Uber’s actions “theft.”  Engadget reported that the amount averaged $900 per driver, yielding a total overcharge of more than $40 million.

2015 contract revisions indicate that Uber knew it was wrongly taking commission on gross fares, thereby overcharging drivers, though the company denied that allegation.

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.

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.

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