Bloomberg reports that Uber’s Chief Security Officer, Joe Sullivan, was also assigned the title of deputy general counsel. Bloomberg notes the importance of this designation: it “could allow him to assert attorney-client privilege on his communications with colleagues and make his e-mails more difficult for a prosecutor to subpoena.”
Hired private investigators to monitor employee, surveil competitors, and vet potential hires
Bloomberg reports that Uber hired private investigators to monitor an employee, China strategy chief Liu Zhen. It seems Uber’s concern was that Liu’s cousin Jean Liu is president of ride-hailing competitor Didi Chuxing.
Bloomberg further reports Uber surveilling competitors, and conducting “extensive vetting on potential hires.”
The use of private investigators was overseen by Joe Sullivan, Uber’s Chief Security Officer, through a team called Strategic Services Group.
Tracked driver activity on Grab
Uber sought information about the drivers and activity of Grab, Uber’s major competitor in Southeast Asia. To do so, Uber’s Surfcam program connected to Grab servers to figure out how many drivers were connected and where they were.
Bloomberg describes legal concerns associated with Surfcam:
Surfcam raised alarms with at least one member of Uber’s legal team, who questioned whether it could be legally operated in Singapore because it may run afoul of Grab’s terms of service or the country’s strict computer-crime laws, a person familiar with the matter said.
Nonetheless, Bloomberg reports that the creator of Surfcam is still working for Uber, having moved from Singapore to Uber’s European headquarters in Amsterdam.
See also the “Hell” program whereby Uber tracked data from Lyft.
Kalanick “promoted” then-General Counsel Yoo to sideline her
As then-Genreal Counsel Salle Yoo pushed for Uber to comply with the law, then-CEO Travis Kalanick reassigned her from General Counsel to Chief Legal Officer. Kalanick styled this as a promotion, but Bloomberg says his “true intention was to sideline her from daily decisions” (based on assessment from two employees who worked closely with them).
Legal department “spirit of rule-breaking”
Bloomberg reported that then-CEO Travis Kalanick encouraged then-General Counsel Salle Yoo to create a legal department with what Bloomberg called a “spirit of rule-breaking.” In a performance review, Kalanick told Yoo she needed to be more “innovative.” Bloomberg reports that Yoo considered herself “liberated” by not having to follow “best practices,” being allowed “to do things the way I think things should be done, rather than the way other people do it.” But Bloomberg says Yoo failed to challenge Kalanick and his deputies, or raise objections to Uber’s board.
At least five criminal probes by US Justice Department
In October 2017, Bloomberg reported at least five criminal probes of Uber by the US Department of Justice, two more than previously reported. Additions:
- violations of price-transparency laws
- Uber’s role in the alleged theft of schematics and other documents related to Google autonomous-driving technology
Confident of victory, Google sought $1 billion settlement from Uber
Confident that it would prevail in trade secret litigation alleging that Uber stole Google information, Google proposed that Uber pay $1 billion of damages, issue a public apology, and appoint an independent monitor to assure that Uber does not use Google technology in the future.
Reuters interpreted Google’s proposal: “Waymo’s tough negotiating stance, which has not been previously reported, reflects the company’s confidence in its legal position after months of pretrial victories in a case which may help to determine who emerges in the forefront of the fast-growing field of self-driving cars. The aggressive settlement demands also suggest that Waymo is not in a hurry to resolve the lawsuit, in part because of its value as a distraction for Uber leadership.”
Uber rejected the proposal.
London Employment Tribunal determined that Uber drivers are employees
In response to a complaint from trade union GMB, the London Employment Tribunal determined that Uber drivers are employees.
Remarking “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” at Uber’s numerous contractual provisions insisting that drivers are not employees, the LET simultaneously looked at Uber’s various “unguarded moments” in which the company used terminology most consistent with employment status. Ultimately the LET said it is “unreal” to deny the “practical reality” that Uber provides transportation services, and in that context the LET found that the drivers must be employees.
The LET rejected as “ridiculous” the suggestion that Uber is “a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common ‘platform.'” The LET rejected Uber’s claim of only providing driver with “leads.” For one, drivers have no opportunity to negotiate or bargain with passengers. The LET also examined the interaction between drivers and passengers, including when drivers learn the route and how payment occurs. The LET said all these factors indicate an employment relationship.
In a 13-item list, LET gathered factors indicating that drivers are employees, including those detailed above as well as Uber’s practice of interviewing and recruiting drivers, instructing drivers in various respects, setting routes, collecting ratings and imposing penalties, handling complaints, and having the power to amend the contract provisions of the relationship.
Informed by the finding that drivers are employees, the LET went on to analyze their rights as employees and Uber’s violations of those rights.
Due diligence report on Otto and Anthony Levandowski revealed copying of Google information
Forensics firm Stroz Friedberg investigated the information Anthony Levandowski allegedly took from Google and whether or how it was destroyed. Stroz’s report conveys Levandowski’s admission that he had five discs of Google information which he says he destroyed (a claim Stroz was unable to verify).
Stroz found about 50,000 Google work emails on Levandowski’s personal computer, and there was evidence that he accessed some of the emails at about the same time he left Google, making it “difficult to believe” that he could not remember having those emails, as he claimed when interviewed.
Stroz found that Levandowski accessed certain Google files after his departure, then deleted them. Stroz also found evidence of Levandowski searching for instructions on secure file deletions, and telling coworkers to delete messages from him. These deletions are consistent with an attempt to destroy confidential Google information that Levandowski should not have had, but also consistent with a cover-up of information previously received and used.
A Google spokesperson said in a statement: “The Stroz Report unequivocally shows that, before it acquired his company, Uber knew Anthony Levandowski had a massive trove of confidential Waymo source code, design files, technical plans and other materials after leaving Google; that he stole information deliberately, and repeatedly accessed it after leaving Waymo; and that he tried to destroy the evidence of what he had done. In addition, Mr. Levandowski used his smartphone to take thousands of covert photographs of computer screens displaying Google confidential files. Knowing all of this, Uber paid $680 million for Mr. Levandowski’s company, protected him from legal action, and installed him as the head of their self-driving vehicle program.”
Uber Executive invoked Fifth Amendment; company fired him
Accused of stealing driverless car technology from Google (his former employer), Uber executive Anthony Levandowski invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify.
In response to Levandowski’s refusal to cooperate in Uber’s response to Google (Waymo) litigation alleging that Uber stole Google/Waymo secrets, Uber fired Levandowski.
In a letter to Levandowski, Uber terminated him for cause. Uber noted its requirement that he cooperate with the litigation, which he did not do. Uber also noted that his employment agreement warranted that he had returned or destroyed all property and confidential information from any prior employer, but said that Levandowski’s actions gave Uber grounds to allege breach of these commitments.
See also Uber’s May 15, 2017 letter to Levandowski demanding that he comply with a court order, waive his Fifth Amendment protections, and cooperate with Uber’s defense of Google’s lawsuit. See also Levandowski’s May 18, 2017 motion asking the court to modify its order to avoid compelling Levandowski to waive his Fifth Amendment rights.