Bribed police in Indonesia

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 313) reports that Uber managers in Indonesia bribed police in a dispute about location of driver service centers.  Isaac explains:

Instead of moving the company’s hubs, local Uber managers decided to pay off the cops. Every time a police officer would show up, an Uber manager would fork over a cash bribe—usually around 500,000 rupiah, around the equivalent of $35 USD, and the officer would leave. Unsurprisingly, the police became regular visitors.

The US Department of Justice investigated these payments — among others in China, India, and Malaysia — as possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  In January 2020 the investigation was closed without enforcement action.

Strategic Services Group spied on competitors, politicians, and police

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 310) reports that Uber’s Strategic Services Group spied on political figures, lawmakers, and polite in cities where Uber was under scrutiny.  He explains:

They followed people on foot and in cars, tracking their digital activities and movements, and even took photographs of officials in public places.

Isaac reports that Uber SSG also pursued competitors:

SSG operatives recorded private conversations between opponents at DiDi and at Grab, their Southeast Asian competitor. One Lyft executive grew so paranoid about being followed by Uber that he walked out onto his porch, lifted both middle fingers in the air and waved them around, sending a message to the spies he was absolutely sure were watching.

Isaac questions whether these efforts were actually useful for Uber:

It was unclear how much of this intelligence was actionable or even valuable.  Nonetheless Kalanick okayed budgets that spun into the tens of millions for surveillance activity, global operations, and information collection.

Refused to obtain California DMV permit for driverless testing

In December 2016, Uber began testing self-driving cars in California.  But it failed to obtain a $150 permit from the  California Department of Motor Vehicles — not a clerical error, but instead an affirmative decision not to obtain such a permit because, Uber leaders claimed, their vehicles did not require such a permit.  Thus Uber launched its self-driving pilot without notifying state regulators.

The Verge summarizes:

“In their minds, they really thought they weren’t autonomous,” Jessica Gonzalez, assistant deputy director of public affairs at the DMV, told The Verge. “But we decide what’s autonomous. And under our regulations, it was.”

The core of the disagreement was whether Uber’s vehicles constituted “autonomous vehicle” under California law.  Uber claimed that its cars required a human being in the driver’s seat, hence were not autonomous.  But California law defined autonomous based on technology (“any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person”, emphasis added), not just usage.

Contrary to Anthony Levandowski’s email to regulators that “We don’t do AV testing,” The Verge also reported evidence that the Uber vehicles were in fact used in autonomous mode.  For one, The Verge re ports its staff riding in the back seat of one of Uber’s self-driving SUVs in San Francisco prior to the public launch in December. The Verge also reports that its reporters sat behind the driver’s seat while the vehicle drove itself.  The Verge explains:

In both cases, the vehicle drove itself for long stretches of the trip, deftly handling intersections, bridges, and pedestrians without human intervention. There were times when a chime would sound, signaling the driver to take control. But other than that, the car was capable of operating “without the physical control or monitoring of a natural person,” as stipulated under the law.

The idea behind these public demonstrations was to prove that Uber’s self-driving vehicles were capable of handling dense urban environments, in anticipation of one day being capable of operating without a steering wheel, pedals, or even a human in the driver’s seat.

 

After the dispute became public, Uber removed its vehicles from California and began testing in Arizona instead.

2014 hack released data about drivers

Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 208, 215) reports a May 2014 hack in which the names and license numbers of more than 50,000 drivers were compromised.  Uber kept the hack secret, although California law required notifying authorities of a data breach.

Under guidance from new Chief Security Joe Sullivan, Uber finally reported the breach in February 2015, nine months after it occurred.

Paid costs associated with fines and impoundments

When in a dispute with Philadelphia transit regulators, Uber promised to pay any fines and other costs if drivers’ vehicles were impounded:

Uberx: Reminder: If you are ticketed by the PPA, CALL US at [number removed]. You have 100% of our support anytime you are on the road using Uber–we are here for you, and we will get you home safe. All costs associated will be covered by us.

Source: Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 148)

Encouraged regulators to pursue Lyft and Sidecar

In the period where Uber used properly-licensed black cars but competitors Lyft and Sidecar used ordinary vehicles, Travis Kalanick tried to get regulators to pursue Lyft and Sidecar. Uber leaders met secretly with San Franscisco transportation regulators to flag what they saw as violations.  Source: Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped (p. 119).  In addition, Kalanick personally blogged about the situation.

When Uber later launched UberX, with unlicensed vehicles much like Lyft and Sidecar, Kalanick wrote “We could have chosen to use regulation to thwart our competitors,” which Mike Isaac calls “disingenuous” in that Uber had in fact attempted to do exactly that.

Ignored early complaint from San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

In 2010, when Uber operated only in San Francisco and only with black cars, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency sent it a cease and desist order alleging that the company was violating existing transportation regulations. CEO Travis Kalanick was firm in his decision about how to respond to the cease and desist order: “We ignore it.”

Source: Mike Isaac’s Super Pumped, p.91-92

New York City Councilors regretted their decision not to restrain growth of Uber

In 2015, the New York City Council declined to proceed with Mayor De Blasio’s proposal to cap the number of new Uber drivers (in part based on Uber’s vigorous advocacy). Looking back on that decision, the new Speaker of the New York City Council, Corey Johnson told WNYC radio that he had chosen the wrong approach. In particular, he explained, “given what we’ve seen and the explosive growth of this industry and how it’s affected the streets of New York City, I think we should have done more.”

Opposed De Blasio plan to limit number of vehicles

Concerned about growing congestion, New York City Mayor De Blasio proposed a bill to limit the issuance of new for-hire vehicle licenses. The proposal would have limited Uber to about 200 new drivers in New York during the subsequent year.

In response, Uber alerted its New York Customers — creating a “De Blasio’s Uber” feature that always showed either no cars available or a wait time of 25 minutes. With a single button, users could email the mayor and city council to send a form letter prewritten by Uber.

Uber also sent emails to all Uber users in the district of New York Councilman Steve Levin who was sponsoring the bill. And Uber investor Ashton Kutcher Tweeted to criticize the proposal — as did Neil Patrick Harris, who had made money by Tweeting Uber signup links, as well as Kate Upton.

All told, Uber spent $1 million lobbying New York city government officials to defeat the driver cap bill.