Category: cover-ups

Attempts to conceal actual practices

Posted on

London Police said Uber “aware of criminal activity and yet haven’t informed the police”

In an April 2017 letter, the London Metropolitan Police questioned why Uber had not notified the police about criminal offenses known to Uber. The Police reported Uber refusing to provide information within its custody unless the police submit a formal request, and also refusing to report crime to the police because such reports may breach rights of a passenger. The Police questioned Uber’s approach, saying that Uber is “allowing situations to develop” that affect public safety, and noting also that the extra steps Uber calls for can impede prompt prosecution and ultimately lead perpetrators to go free.

The letter’s conclusion:

The significant concern I am raising is that Uber have been made aware of criminal activity and yet haven’t informed the police. Uber are however proactive in reporting lower level document frauds to both the MPS and LTPH. My concern is twofold, firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters / less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.

Posted on

Fuel Card charged drivers for unauthorized purchases; Uber refused to investigate

Uber provided some drivers with “fuel cards” usable for gasoline, carwashes, and other services, at a discount, with charges deducted from future Uber earnings. Multiple drivers reported unauthorized charges posting to their cards.

When drivers reported the problem to Uber, Uber told them that records indicated that the charges were requested with the driver’s PIN, so Uber declined to investigate or look up the charges. (One Uber response: “We’re sorry for any inconvenience this has caused you. I have checked our system and it shows that your PIN Code was entered for each transaction that you have mentioned. Since your PIN Code is unique to your Fuel Card, it is not eligible to file a dispute.”) But some drivers found that charges could be made without PINs. Moreover, skimmers and concealed surveillance devices allow attackers to obtain driver card details and PINs without authorization.

Drivers who requested a phone number for the fuel card issuer — necessary to file police reports in some jurisdictions — were rebuffed by Uber, whose staff said they contacted the issuer only by email.

Drivers report never receiving terms and conditions for the fuel card, noting that no such terms were included in the postal envelope that delivered the card. Requests for the terms through Uber support and in-person visits to Uber local offices were also unsuccessful. However, fine print on the back of each card said drivers were bound by the terms.

Representative complaints from Uber drivers on online discussion boards and social media:

• “I do not use the Uber Fool Card”
• “Veteran drivers call it the Uber Fool Card.”
• “I should have never gotten that damn Uber fuel card.”
• “HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE GAS CARD BULL$h!t AGAIN!!! F$%) ME!!”
• “Just cancelled my Uber fuel card because it took a huge chunk out of my earnings for this past week and left me with nothing but chump change, which I spent on gas. I’m better off using my debit card to pay for gas.” (=

Some drivers explained in greater detail:

UBER SHOULD BE ASHAMED BECAUSE INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING THEY ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO COVER THIS UP!,, I have been trying to get UBER to correct the fuel card issue but they only blew it off saying the excuse about the driver pin code which is the pin that can be cloned and UBER has had the same issues across the USA! They haven’t investigated a video I sent that showed the tall male of Caucasian or Hispanic descent using the card on a NON-UBER vehicle that was a totally different color.

My fraudulent charges are now totaling over $400. This all started on March 22 and I still have not been refunded! They keep telling me that they are waiting on the credit card company to finish their investigation. I have filed a claim with my local police department and they said since the fraud happened in another state they couldn’t do anything so I should file a complaint with the DOJ. In order to do that you have to have a phone number of the company you are filing a complaint against so I asked Uber to give me the credit card company’s contact info. They said that they didn’t have it and that they only dealt with them through email. You know this is a lie because how would they not have the contact info for a company they do business with.

An August 29, 2017 report from The Capitol Forum (paid subscription required) analyzed these concerns and tabulated these and 30+ additional driver complaints.

Posted on

Judge said Uber abused attorney-client privilege

San Francisco district Judge William Alsup criticized Uber’s practice of including lawyers in discussions strategically — using the lawyer’s presence to claim that discussions were privileged if Uber wants to keep the content confidential, but claiming that the attorney did not attend in the capacity of an attorney if that advances Uber’s interests. Alsup explains:

Uber has indulged in the slick practice of including its lawyers in meetings and communications and deciding after the fact if a lawyer was actually included for the purpose of providing legal advice, all in accordance with what happens to be convenient for Uber’s case. Where, as here, the contents of a meeting prove advantageous for Uber to reveal, it readily claims that the lawyer did not attend the meeting in their capacity as a lawyer. But where the contents of a meeting would hurt Uber’s litigation position, Uber is quick to conceal the facts under claims of privilege.

Alsup concluded that he will not “indulge this pattern of convenience.”

Full order from Judge William Alsup and full order from Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Waymo v. Uber litigation docket.

Posted on

Judge said Uber lawyers “misled the court”

San Francisco district judge William Alsup said he would tell the jury that Uber lawyers “misled the court” and withheld documents. He explained that he was “inclined to tell the jury…that [Uber] was ordered to come clean, ordered to come clean again, and did not come clean — finally in June or July came clean.” Alsup continued: “You misled the judge time and time again.”

Waymo v. Uber litigation docket

Posted on

Misrepresented its monitoring of employee access to data, steps taken to secure data

In a press release, the FTC summarized its privacy-related complaint against Uber.

For example, Uber told the public that the company “has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data. The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes.” Uber claimed access was “closely monitored and audited by data security specialists on an ongoing basis.” Uber made strong claim in its privacy policy such as “We use the most up to date technology and services” to protect customer data, and “we’re extra vigilant in protecting” customer data” via “the highest security standards available.”

In contrast, the FTC found that Uber “has not always closely monitored and audited its employees’ access to Rider and Driver accounts” in that the security system “was not designed or staffed … effectively.” The FTC continued: “In approximately August 2015, Respondent ceased using the automated system it had developed in December 2014 and began to develop a new automated monitoring system. From approximately August 2015 until May 2016, Respondent did not timely follow up on automated alerts concerning the potential misuse of consumer personal information, and for approximately the first six months of this period, Respondent only monitored access to account information belonging to a set of internal high-profile users, such as Uber executives.”

The FTC also criticized Uber for letting engineers use shared access keys with full administrative privileges to all data in Uber’s Amazon Web Services database, rather than requiring that each program and each engineer use a separate key. Uber further failed to restrict access based on employees’ job functions, and failed to require multi-factor authentication to access data. Until March 2015, Uber stored sensitive personal information in AWS in clear text without encryption.

Posted on

Driver names and license numbers improperly secured

In September 2014, Uber experienced a data breach resulting from an Uber engineer posting an access code which let an unauthorized third party accessed driver names and driver license numbers. Uber failed to notify affected drivers or the state of New York for seven months.

The New York Attorney General described the breach and Uber’s handling of the situation:

The Attorney General found that in early 2014 an Uber engineer posted an access ID for Uber’s third-party cloud storage on Github.com, a website designed to allow software engineers to collaborate. The post was accessible to the general public. On May 12, 2014, someone unaffiliated with Uber accessed the database that included Uber driver names and driver license numbers. Uber discovered the breach in September 2014 but did not provide notice to the affected drivers and Schneiderman’s office until February 26, 2015. General Business Law § 899-aa requires notice be provided to affected individuals and various government agencies including Schneiderman’s office “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”

As part of a settlement with the New York Attorney General’s office, Uber promised to implement multi-factor authentication for any employee could to access especially sensitive rider personal information, among other improved data security practices. Uber also paid a $20,000 penalty for failing to timely notify drivers and the State of New York.

A subsequent FTC investigation and settlement found that more than 100,000 drivers were affected. The FTC reported that in addition to 100,000+ names and driver’s license numbers, Uber also revealed 215 names and bank account numbers with routing numbers, and 84 names and security numbers. Furthermore, the FTC found that Uber’s efforts to notify affected drivers were piecemeal and incomplete: The company initially notified less than half of the drivers affected, whereas others were notified some 16+ months later.

Posted on

When Uber driver stole passenger’s bag, Uber falsely told police that the trip did not occur

Uber passenger Dane Wilcox reports the saga of a ride in an Uber in Boston. He told the driver he was leaving a bag in the passenger compartment as he unloaded luggage from the trunk — but then the driver drove off. When the driver didn’t return his calls or voicemails, he sought assistance from Uber and ended up filing a small claims lawsuit against Uber.

Meanwhile, in response to Wilcox’s police report, an officer tried to investigate, but Uber falsely told the investigating detective that the driver at issue had not worked for Uber for two years, and that the company had no record of the ride — both provably false. Based on these false statements which impeded the investigation, the small claims court awarded Wilcox the full $4000 he sought.

See also coverage by Ars Technica.

Posted on

London police: Uber failed to report driver attacks

The Guardian reported a letter from the London Metropolitan Police’s taxi and private hire team, complaining that Uber failed to timely report drivers attacking passengers. “Had Uber notified police after the first offence, it would be right to assume that the second would have been prevented,” the letter explained. The letter said that Uber failed to report sexual assaults as well as an incident in which a driver “produced what was thought to be pepper spray during a road rage argument.”

Posted on

Knowingly leased recalled vehicles to drivers in Singapore

Uber knowingly leased recalled vehicles to its drivers in Singapore. A Wall Street Journal report (paid subscription required) describes a driver whose vehicle caught fire, due to the problem fixed by the recall, just after a passenger got out. WSJ explains:

News of the fire rippled through Uber’s Singapore office after its insurance provider said it wouldn’t cover the damage because of the known recall, emails show. Word reached Uber’s San Francisco executives two days later, emails show.

Uber’s lawyers in Singapore began assessing the legal liability, including possibly violating driver contracts for supplying faulty cars and failing to immediately inform the Land Transport Authority about the defective cars, emails show. “There is clearly a large safety/responsible actor/brand integrity/PR issue” for Uber, an internal report read.

Additional coverage from TechCrunch.

Proudly powered by WordPress