Practices that distinctively affected passengers
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.
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.
Uber promised credit on a passenger’s “next trip” but added undisclosed restrictions. Details.
Uber promised passengers a “free ride” but provided only a $15 discount. Details.
An Uber employee told a visiting journalist that he had tracked her, leading her to uncover an internal company tool called “God View” that let Uber staff see the travels of any passenger including both real-time and historic location, all without the passenger’s knowledge.
Uber granted job candidates provisional access to the same customer location data provided to full-time employees. One candidate reported having this access for an entire day, even after the interview ended. He admitted searching for records of people he knew, including politicians’ relatives.
User also displayed customer data to members of the public invited to its premises. At a 2011 party celebrating Uber’s launch in Chicago, Uber let guests visually track passenger rides, without users’ permission or knowledge.
Uber drivers were accused of sexually assaulting riders in Atlanta, Boston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, and more.
After outcry about exorbitant fares, Uber agreed to cap surge pricing during emergencies. Yet the company faced criticism a few months later for temporarily raising fares during the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, then again for surges during London attacks.
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
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.
Through October 2014, Uber charged passengers a $4.00 “Airport Fee Toll” to travel to San Francisco International Airport, although there was no such fee charged by the airport, city, or anyone else. The city reported that some drivers (though by all indications not many) had permission to operate commercially at SFO, but that they paid $3.85 at most in fees to SFO. Uber always charged more—indeed, as much as $8 if two passengers shared an UberPool vehicle to SFO.