Uber is facing one less lawsuit against it. Two district attorneys sued the ride-sharing company over statements it made about the safety of its service as well as fees charged to passengers traveling to or from the airport:
Uber Technologies Inc agreed to a $25 million settlement to end a civil lawsuit in California that accused the ride-sharing company of misleading customers about the strength of its background checks on drivers, prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco said on Thursday. Uber must pay $10 million within 60 days, and the remaining $15 million will be waived if Uber complies with the terms of the agreement for two years, the San Francisco and Los Angeles County district attorneys said in statements.
[...] The case was filed in December 2014 by the two district attorneys, who alleged that Uber misled its customers about the strength of its background checks on drivers. The civil complaint also contended that Uber drivers work at airports without obtaining authorization, and in the case of San Francisco, charged a $4 extra fee to passengers traveling there, without paying anything to the airport.
Airport surcharges aren't necessarily going away, but Uber will only operate at California airports at which it has explicit permission to do so. In their arguments against Uber's "gold standard" safety advertising, the district attorneys noted that Uber does not use fingerprint checks as traditional cab companies do, and that Uber had failed to prevent 25 people with prior criminal convictions from becoming drivers.
The $10 million payment will be split evenly between the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Previously: Uber: Cartel or Company? Court Rulings Diverge
Related Stories
Here are two updates on motions in two unrelated cases against Uber:
In a case in which passengers claim they were sexually attacked by the drivers, the judge will allow the suit to move ahead, dismissing Uber's petition to throw out the suit. In another case, in which a litigant claims that surge pricing is a form of price-fixing, the judge has allowed the case to move forward as well. Basically, the judge seems to view Uber as facilitating cartel-forming.
To me, these two rulings seem incompatible. The first ruling seems to be based on the view that drivers are "a part of" Uber, while the second seems to be based on the view that drivers are independent - at least, I would assume a business is not beholden to have uniform prices across the USA.
Of course, I ain't no lawyer, so curious to hear what Soylentils think: Is Uber liable for drivers like a company is for its employees, or is Uber enabling price-fixing between drivers like a cartel? Can these two views legally co-exist?
Related: Uber Drivers Granted Class-Action Status in California
California's Unemployment Dept. Says Uber Drivers are Employees
Uber is settling class action lawsuits with drivers in two states, who will remain as independent contractors rather than employees:
Uber drivers will stay independent contractors, not employees, in California and Massachusetts, just as the ride-booking company had maintained they were. Uber is settling class action lawsuits by drivers in the two states for a maximum of $100 million.
In a statement, the company says it will pay the plaintiffs $84 million, plus another $16 million if Uber goes public and within a year increases in value by one and a half times over its worth in December. The deal allows Uber to keep labor costs low because it doesn't have to pay independent workers the same kind of wages, expenses and benefits as employees.
In a claim last year brought by an Uber driver, the California Labor Commissioner ruled the driver was an employee. Although the commissioner's ruling was specific to the claim and not precedent-setting, it gave plaintiffs some ammunition and Uber more incentive to negotiate. Still, Uber has been able to keep this aspect of its business model in place.
Related:
California: Uber Driver is an Employee
Uber Drivers Granted Class-Action Status in California
Cab Medallion Owners Sue NYC, Blame Uber for Ruining Business
Uber: Cartel or Company? Court Rulings Diverge
Uber to Pay $10 Million to Settle California Lawsuit Over Safety Claims and Airport Surcharges
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday April 08 2016, @09:13PM
What are those with a criminal record supposed to do if they can't even be fucking uber drivers?
oh that's right, fuck them cuz they're criminals?
Fuck that. People need to make a living, and if you exclude them, then wtf do you expect them to do?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @09:23PM
They have to do jobs that don't require that people trust them with their physical safety?
I have observed cases where convicted murder tried to study to become a medical doctor. When it the media got the whiff of that it went ballistic. So, some professions are not workable.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday April 08 2016, @09:31PM
I mean that the only jobs for those tend to be those in the gig economy, frankly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09 2016, @11:48AM
That's great that they wanted to become a doctor. Maybe they want to do something where they can help people and gain the respect they lost.
Murder is often a very personal crime with a strong motive and the sentences are usually long. I would have no problem with having a doctor that overreacted to a situation and murdered someone twenty years ago. Will someone who murdered before deliberately misdiagnose athlete'sfoot, incorrectly cut an umbilical cord, or overlook an early stage cancer of a complete stranger?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday April 08 2016, @09:42PM
i agree that automatically excluding all people who have been convicted of a crime is ludacris. however, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. therefore, i think exclusions should be specific crimes. for example, someone convicted of embezzlement should not be managing money. it's a shitty situation and we need to learn about psychology and neurology if we are going to exclude groups of people from jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08 2016, @10:44PM
Consider judaschrist instead.
Seriously: ludicrous [dictionary.com], from Latin lūdicrus (a toy or the result of childplay action; ludere - to play)
---
the jerk on duty
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 08 2016, @11:17PM
Someone who has been convicted of terrorism shouldn't be allowed to drive a taxi to the airport. I'm sorry, but we mustn't have another 9-11.
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/2013-08-nsa-case-cites-for-surveillance [thecrimereport.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday April 09 2016, @03:38AM
After reading some details about the affair [newyorker.com], I decided I wouldn't be afraid to have him driving the taxi I'd be in (warning: long read, but... it's weekend, so maybe you'd be inclined)
In brief, even FBI agreed [propublica.org]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Friday April 08 2016, @10:09PM
Of course airport surcharges aren't going away. If they made Uber get rid of them, they might have to make the cabs get rid of them, and that isn't going to happen.
If you need to get to/from the airport in LA (or most bigger cities), use a shuttle service. Most of the nicer hotels will call one for you (even if you are not staying there) and often you can get one at the airport. Last time I traveled it was about $70 for a cab to the airport, $50 for Uber, and $15 for a shuttle (per person). So for even 3 people it is cheaper to take a shuttle.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 09 2016, @12:02AM
That depends on the distance and how much time you want to waste while your shuttle picks up other people and brings you to the airport more than two hours before departure.
Those numbers don't make sense. Uber is almost always twice cheaper than a cab. And if Uber is $50, a shuttle would be at least $30 for the first person. If the shuttle is only $15, Uber should be closer to $25. I've done the ride and the math many times over the years.
Also the airport surcharge is charged when you leave the airport, not when you drive into it.