Judge Says Uber Should Be Shut Down In California
from the another-day,-another-problem dept
Uber appears to be a company that just can't get out of the way of controversy. The week actually started out good for the company with New York announcing that Uber drivers were clearly contractors rather than employees (unlike a California labor commission ruling that went the other way). However, on Wednesday afternoon an administrative judge in California declared that the company's services should be suspended statewide for supposedly refusing to provide data that it's required to provide under a 2013 law that helped "legalize" the service (that was already widely in use at the time).Uber, for its part, insists that it delivered the necessary info and promises to appeal the ruling (which also includes a $7.3 million fine, which is pocket change for the company right now). It also appears to hint that the information that the Public Utilities Commission is seeking would actually violate the company's privacy policies.
In a statement, an Uber spokeswoman called the decision "deeply disappointing."The details seem to involve what kinds of data Uber was supposed to turn over, including specifics about requests from users with service animals or wheelchairs. Uber apparently didn't have the ability to track that information in the past, though it does now. On the flip side, the California PUC argues that companies in the space were given a year to comply, and thus Uber had plenty of time to make sure it was compliant and failed to do so.
"We will appeal the decision as Uber has already provided substantial amounts of data to the California Public Utilities Commission, information we have provided elsewhere with no complaints," spokeswoman Laura Zapata said. "Going further risks compromising the privacy of individual riders as well as driver-partners."
As part of the 2013 law that legalized ride-hailing in California, companies are required to prepare an annual report with data about rides provided through the app.It would appear that the company and its lawyers are going to remain rather busy for the foreseeable future. It is, frankly, somewhat surprising that Uber didn't do more to comply with these requests, even if it disagrees with need to hand over such information. Not fully complying was always going to end badly. There may be legitimate privacy arguments for Uber to make here, but it doesn't seem like playing games with the CPUC is the best way to make that point.
Uber's 2014 report did not include hard numbers on customers who requested cars to accommodate service animals or wheelchairs, nor how often those requests were fulfilled, the judge said. The company also didn't provide raw numbers on requests for rides tabulated by ZIP Code, and how many of those rides were fulfilled, instead providing “aggregates, averages and percentages,” and a heat map showing which ZIP Codes generally saw the most requests.
Uber also failed to submit complete information on drivers who have been suspended or committed a violation, the judge said. The company did not provide the “cause of the incident reported,” or the amount paid out by any insurance company other than Uber's.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: california, cpuc, data, privacy, puc
Companies: uber
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pigs fly! Hell freezes over! Mike Masnick (gently) criticizes Uber!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Uber shouldn't be subject to this law. With Uber you get on the app and they contact the drivers in your local area so the nearest one can go to where you are. This is like private hire taxis in the UK where you get on the phone to ring your preferred firm, and they get on the radio to all their cars in your local area so the nearest one can go pick you up. In contrast, ride hailing is when you lift your arm up in the street or give a loud whistle and a passing taxi stops so you can get in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut down Uber campaign
"Uber shuts down in Kansas"
"Can the Taxi Union Get the Courts to Shut down Uber..." (DC)
"Boston Taxi Drivers to Hold Rally to Shut Down Uber"
"Braintree license board may shut down Uber"
"Toronto attempting to shut down Uber service within city limits"
"Judges asked to shut down Uber, Lyft in Pittsburgh"
"Parking authority threatens to shut down Uber service..." (Philadelphia)
"French government to shut down Uber after violent protests..."
"Petition · Colorado PUC: Don't Shut Down Uber!! Withdraw..."
"Plaia: Portsmouth should shut down UBER X service"
"ALJ Recommends Rules to Shut Down Uber Denver… AGAIN!"
"City of Portland sues Uber in bid to shut taxi service down"
.
.
.
[more excuses to come] to Shut Down Uber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Wake up mike, its not often I can catch you in FUD but this is pretty basic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Oh a cab driver, great source of objective information about Uber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Oh, was it the actor you were looking to for reliable info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
If you don't ask yourself how far up your end it has to be before you realize your a puppet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
No, I didn't realise you're my puppet, but thanks for informing me (watch your homophones).
And just so you know, you basically just accused of being a shill of Uber someone who has absolutely no connection with the company, not even to use its services. Assumption much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a weird statement. They seem to think all that's necessary is to provide some amount of data that Uber feels is "substantial", and sufficient to satisfy some authority in some jurisdiction where they operate. I imagine the California court issuing the order feels Uber needs to comply with the actual California law. I wouldn't guess this will end well for Uber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uber ride fulfillment in troubled neighborhoods and for handicapped/service animals is horrible. How do I know that? Because if it was good they would be shouting it from the mountaintop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might as well complain that luxury flower delivery companies are horrible for receiving and fulfilling few orders in low income neighborhoods or call out interior decorators for their lack of service in low-budget student housing apartments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you win this game?
Rule #2) You must provide a report including details of your customers private information to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Hood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was ist dort verboten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]