Category: drivers

Practices that distinctively affected drivers.

Posted on

Tracked driver activity on Lyft servers

News site The Information in April 2017 reported that Uber built a program it called “Hell” to track how many Lyft drivers were available, where they were located, and whether they drove for Uber also.  Uber then targeted these drivers with special promotions to encourage them to use Uber only.

By all indications, Uber collected data for “Hell” by connecting to Lyft’s servers in a manner prohibited by Lyft’s Terms of Service.

The Information reported that Uber then-CEO Travis Kalanick personally praised the Hell team, saying that they demonstrated Uber’s culture in their willingness to “hustle” in order to win.

In September 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported the FBI investigating Uber’s “Hell” practices.

Bloomberg reports that Hell was overseen by Joe Sullivan, Chief Security Officer of Uber, through a team formerly known as Competitive Intelligence.

See also the “Surfcam” program whereby Uber tracked data from Grab.

Posted on

Multiple drivers rejected blind passengers with service dogs

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.

Posted on

“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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

Arbitration clauses repeatedly criticized by federal judges

Multiple judges criticized Uber’s requirement that passengers and drivers resolve disputes only in arbitration, foregoing lawsuits, group lawsuits such as class actions, trial by jury, and other standard legal protections.

In Meyer v. Uber, Judge Rakoff remarked that Uber’s arbitration requirement is “by no means prominently displayed on Uber’s registration screen” and that the presentation of the requirement is “obscure” and “inconspicuous” (2016 WL 4073012 at *8).

In Mohamed v. Uber, Judge Chen repeatedly criticized Uber’s arbitration requirement, finding it “both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable as a matter of California law.” Among other concerns, Chen noted that the arbitration clause required drivers to pay half the cost of arbitration, that confidentiality clauses disproportionately benefited Uber, that a carve-out for intellectual property claims solely benefited Uber, and that Uber retained a right of unilateral modification.  Chen later reviewed Uber’s proposed revision, found it unsatisfactory, and insisted on further revisions.  Chen also criticized Uber’s communication with drivers about the arbitration clause under litigation, without court approval.

Proudly powered by WordPress