14 ms·

Uber gets sued over alleged ‘Hell’ program to track Lyft drivers

426 points by indexerror 9y ago

misiti3780 9y ago
Uber lost me as a customer if there are other options. I was in Houston this past weekend and everyone is using Uber, no one using Lyft, etc. I ended up downloading their app and using it all weekend, and uninstalled it as soon as I got to the airport. I wonder how many other cities are basically exclusively Uber currently ?
- josu 9y ago
  And countries. There are currently no real alternatives in Mexico.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    And of course that's the strategy, right there.
- nebabyte 9y ago
  > if there are other options Hence the problem they're trying to solve by poaching drivers. They're fine being the ISPs of ridesharing - ISPs are still in business.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things though, so hopefully good-faith questions are still welcome: What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them? Not only did it not harm Lyft drivers, but it actually aided them: Several of them were offered hundreds of dollars by Uber to switch companies. Most drivers are trying to make end's meet, and from speaking directly with drivers, this was seen as a universally positive thing. "I was like, yes! Where do I sign? $400 bucks is amazing. Too bad my car was too old for Uber." Though I guess if Mr. Gonzales wins his lawsuit, it will give the answer to these questions and more.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? Hard to believe this is a serious question, but the answer is that it's an invasion of privacy. "Tracking" is a polite way to put it, but if I'm reading it correctly, Uber is basically stalking them. Just when I think Uber can't be any sleazier, they find a way.
- throwaway4job 9y ago
  I'll offer a good faith answer, even though I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss it as snarky condescension. Point 1: Lyft's API comes with a contractual agreement regarding acceptable usage. Uber deliberately breached that agreement. This is a breach of property rights. Point 2: They breached Lyft's property rights with the intent of stalking Lyft drivers, and of harming Lyft as an organization. This shows the breach of property rights was not neutral or positive, but rather was an activity meant to harm the property owner, and to reduce the competitive landscape. Point 3: It was a clear violation of law. I include this last because law only loosely correlates with morality; however law draws the lines on the playing field and it is worth explicitly noting that Uber arranged for its employees to break federal law, repeatedly, for Uber's benefit. If you don't think property rights are important, go talk with a Libertarian.
  - an_account 9y ago
    Which laws did Uber break? You said it was a "clear" violation, but it seems like there's a lot of debate. I don't know enough either way, so I'd like to hear your explanation.
- OedipusRex 9y ago
  "The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"
  - tyingq 9y ago
    For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/
nodesocket 9y ago
It is no coincidence that Techcrunch loves writing negative articles about Uber almost weekly now.... It draws in page views which equals ad revenue from the constantly outraged.
- dave5104 9y ago
  Maybe Uber should stop doing negative things then.
  - nodesocket 9y ago
    You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise? How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11? Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably." (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...) > There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers. And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!
      - metaphorm 9y ago
david-cako 9y ago
Uber can't seem to catch a break these days, can they. Can anyone explain how this is different from Google and Facebook following you around with informatics everywhere you go on the internet? The favicon trick is a pretty good example.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Does this behavior warrant Uber catching a break? In my opinion, no. If Uber wants to catch a break, maybe they should stop behaving like this...
- wickawic 9y ago
  Google and Facebook don't (get caught) breaking each other's Terms of Service. I haven't read the leagalese, but I would imagine using Lyft's APIs to compete directly with their business is probably not kosher.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization. Another interesting question is how Uber has gone from being untouchable to assailable since the sexual harassment scandals. Uber is a populist creature. Their users used to protect them from harassment. Now, fewer people show up for protests or call their representatives to defend Travis and friends. Part of this is because, in most places, there are other options. Part of it is they lost their base. [1] See 18 U.S.C. § 1030 a/k/a the CFAA
  - nikcub 9y ago
    > As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization. Google developed a hack for Safari to bypass the default third-party cookie blocking[0] Facebook made private profile information available to apps installed by friends[1] It seems rather arbitrary to distinguish Uber from the multiple occasions both Facebook and Google have had to answer or settle with the FTC for mishandling private user data. [0] http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-pays-17m-to-settle-safari-cookie-privacy-bypass-charge/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-pays-17m-to-settle-safar... [1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/092-3184/facebook-inc https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/092-3184/f...
jansho 9y ago
One after the other. To put a conspiracy/playful hat on - seriously this is not my serious opinion - could it be that Uber is getting set up? Not necessarily framed but "oops, this just got leaked" set of dominoes. Apparently quite a few people are mad at Uber, like Apple, and Google, and the taxi drivers ...
- wavefunction 9y ago
  The far more simple answer is that this is who Kalanick and Uber are.
  - yawaworht12 9y ago
    The simplest answer is clicks and ad revenue.
- Neliquat 9y ago
  I postulate that many more companies do this type of behavior than you realize, and the heightened attention, and entrenched competition are sure to surface every little screwup. So basically its a bit of both.
- alexbeloi 9y ago
  I would guess it's a combination of intentional leaks and reporters smelling blood in the water. Maybe also the upper management did something to lose the favor of people that would normally protect them from these kind of events (big investors). Or at least put a stop to them. Something to note is that half (3/6) of Uber's board members are internal (Uber employees). So perhaps Kalanick is under no pressure of being ousted (maybe he has tie-breaking/veto privilege as the chairman) by the board, and so people that do want him removed are resorting to leaking bad press, in the hope that external pressure will force a change.
  - jansho 9y ago
    > are resorting to leaking bad press, in the hope that external pressure will force a change. Well I'll hang my hat now and grab my pitchfork to join the mob...
dinedal 9y ago
How does anyone, when asked to build such a program, not raise an objection, or say something? The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  Well I'd want to know, what is your basis for calling it an ethical compromise?
- vkou 9y ago
  I just send the rockets up, where they come down is not my department. Why do people build weapons? Why do people pay taxes, that are used to fund immoral actions? Why do people provide services to immoral actors? Typically, the answer is money.
  - idoh 9y ago
    On the tax side, we neither have control over whether to pay taxes nor how it is spent, so that's not a reasonable example.
    - vkou 9y ago
      You could always move to a country which does not spend your money on behavior you object to.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Or take advantage of tax deductions and credits in your country so as to reduce or even eliminate your tax liability: US-specific: * EV credit: $7500 * Solar panels on your roof: 30% federal tax credit (some states have incentives as well) * Mortgage interest/insurance * Educational expenses * Charity contributions * Tax loss harvesting of non-tax advantaged investment accounts Some of the above require itemizing.
  - saghm 9y ago
alistproducer2 9y ago
Uber lost me as a customer a couple months ago. Now we just need some competition for lyft so they don't become the only game in town.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
freewizard 9y ago
From the code name of these projects from Uber: Heaven(God View) / Hell, you can pretty much tell this company thinks it's playing god. This is terrifying and must be stopped!
- robk 9y ago
  God view is a fairly common term though in many products. Nothing innovative from Uber in that usage
- thesmallestcat 9y ago
  Makes you think you should always choose the driest names possible, even for internal projects. That said, I agree, who would name a tool like this "Hell"??
  - workergnome 9y ago
    Hell is "other people". -- Jean-Paul Sartre
- notyourwork 9y ago
  My team has a tool named Zeus, it is not a malicious application. It is simply the administration utility engineers/business use to manage our data and platform. This is no different than judging a book by its cover.
fencepost 9y ago
I'm not sure that a Lyft driver suing has as much bad potential for Uber as a class action of former Uber drivers. Given the reported churn there's likely a significant pool of those drivers, and since Uber apparently considers both Lyft and McDonald's as competitors, it seems likely that many of them are not feeling wealthy. IIRC the previous coverage noted that Uber was providing incentives to drivers who were using both systems, including both bonuses and steering passengers to the both-systems drivers to incentivize them to drop Lyft and only drive for Uber. The corollary of that is that there are a bunch of Uber-only drivers and former drivers who had their incomes hurt by Uber's redirection of profitable fares to 2-system drivers. THAT may be actionable, and a class action of former drivers seems like it wouldn't be that hard to put together.
- wbl 9y ago
  How is it actionable? Uber is under no obligation to give any driver rides. Favoring ones with a better BATNA is just good business.
  - fencepost 9y ago
    This would likely depend on the terms of the contract with the drivers and on what statements if any were made to drivers about how rides were allocated, prioritized, etc. If the drivers had been led to believe that ride allocation was "fair" (based on distance, predicted arrival time, etc.) or under their control (based on rides being presented to multiple drivers and assigned to the first responder) then finding that it was actually weighted in favor of people driving for Lyft might be a problem for them. This also goes back to the principle of "anyone can sue for anything" as long as it's not frivolous, and this doesn't seem like it'd be considered such. A suit might not be successful, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least considered.
WhitneyLand 9y ago
There is something weird about the tactics of Uber execs. I don't think it's all an ethics failure. A lot of the lying and cheating they do seems like an objectively poor risk/reward proposition and I think many companies would not even get to the ethics question because they would stop when realizing the ideas are stupid when you add up the negatives. Stealing Google's autonomous auto IP could be a crime that actually moves the needle for the company (if it turns out they are guilty), so I guess they at least had significant upside with that one.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It's not weird at all. It looks pretty obviously like a pump and dump scheme. This behavior is fraud, and i bet the juiciest stuff is yet to come. I'm sure the criminal complaint coming from some US Attorney will reveal that somebody was cashing out in private markets. This is no different than a boiler room.
  - mvindahl 9y ago
    Excellent point. I, too, had been wondering about Uber's priorities. Realizing that the stock valuation at the time of IPO is their only guiding metric has made the pieces fall into place for me.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    I don't agree with that. I think it's related to the fundamental nature of speculative capitalism. This is Uber 'virtue signaling'. With regard to stock market valuation, what humans might consider values is reversed. Stock market speculators think (or are designed to think, in the case of software agents) like sharks, not community members or citizens or team members. The equation is 'feed or die' and value is intentionally the only factor. The common denominator of all these Uber behaviors is this: aggressive or even psychotic competitiveness, beyond any conceivable rule or law. w.r.t their stock valuation this is virtue signaling. For this behavior not to benefit them, they have to not only LOSE the lawsuit in question but also have it damage them more than they gained in 'appearance of psychotic competitiveness'. That's possible, but it's really important to understand the virtue signalling aspect. If the behavior persuades a bunch of amoral stock speculators that Uber is their kind of company it can directly translate into capital valuation that can in turn be spent on lawyers for trying to win the legal cases. And since the value proposition here is establishing a giant multinational corporation that ignores any and all laws, documenting additional laws or rules broken only underscores the value proposition. Virtue signalling… in Hell. (literally!)
Dangeranger 9y ago
Is there a separate lawsuit from Lyft Inc., or is the sole lawsuit originating as a class action filed on the behalf of the driver(s)? It would seem to me that the Lyft company has the strongest case here against Uber based on a violation of the terms of service for the private API that Uber abused. If Lyft were successful in their lawsuit, that would lend confidence to a follow-on suit by drivers.
artursapek 9y ago
Uber can't seem to stay out of the news.
- beedogs 9y ago
  Because they're a horrible company run by criminals.
phoenixProgram 9y ago
As bad as this is, techcrunch should be noted for its bravery in using a term that is sensitive with Christians. I'm not sure exactly why common sense and decency has fallen to a level where a name like "Hell" can describe any program invented by human device. That is, outside of civilian terror. Supposedly the government maintains some monopoly on civilian terror for the greater good, and leaves the meaning of that up to the civilians who have a little experience in how that term is used or abused by those who make claims on the greater good. The notion that corporations can terrorize civilians outside of this moral universe is not acceptable. We can't allow a chaos of civilian terror that is "made legal" by some court decision. The notion that democracy will devolve into a paroxysm of legal terror must be treated seriously and swiftly by those who are equipped to handle the mental load.
sidcool 9y ago
Uber might become the Napster of our times. Although I wish it doesn't happen.
moomin 9y ago
Is it just me, or would it save Uber a lot of time if they just got the lawyers to go over discovery in one pass for every project they run? It might be erm... tantamount to admitting most of your activity is subject to legal challenge but the cost savings would be astronomical.
p0nce 9y ago
Uber keeps being Uber, a shady investment and value-destroying business.
- edlebert 9y ago
  I can't stomach using them anymore.
dudidi 9y ago
Can someone here tells me is Uber even trying to fix all the problems? Do they consider any of their controversial strategies morally wrong? Or they're just trying to make everything looks fine?

426 points by indexerror 9y ago

Uber lost me as a customer if there are other options. I was in Houston this past weekend and everyone is using Uber, no one using Lyft, etc. I ended up downloading their app and using it all weekend, and uninstalled it as soon as I got to the airport. I wonder how many other cities are basically exclusively Uber currently ?

josu 9y ago
And countries. There are currently no real alternatives in Mexico.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  And of course that's the strategy, right there.
nebabyte 9y ago
> if there are other options Hence the problem they're trying to solve by poaching drivers. They're fine being the ISPs of ridesharing - ISPs are still in business.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

So, no one was really able to answer my question last thread. In fact, I mostly got snarky condescending replies. I've stopped caring about such things though, so hopefully good-faith questions are still welcome: What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? What is wrong with using a competitor's API to get real-time tactical information about them? Not only did it not harm Lyft drivers, but it actually aided them: Several of them were offered hundreds of dollars by Uber to switch companies. Most drivers are trying to make end's meet, and from speaking directly with drivers, this was seen as a universally positive thing. "I was like, yes! Where do I sign? $400 bucks is amazing. Too bad my car was too old for Uber." Though I guess if Mr. Gonzales wins his lawsuit, it will give the answer to these questions and more.

jlarocco 9y ago
> What's wrong with Uber tracking Lyft drivers? Hard to believe this is a serious question, but the answer is that it's an invasion of privacy. "Tracking" is a polite way to put it, but if I'm reading it correctly, Uber is basically stalking them. Just when I think Uber can't be any sleazier, they find a way.
throwaway4job 9y ago
I'll offer a good faith answer, even though I'm pretty sure you'll dismiss it as snarky condescension. Point 1: Lyft's API comes with a contractual agreement regarding acceptable usage. Uber deliberately breached that agreement. This is a breach of property rights. Point 2: They breached Lyft's property rights with the intent of stalking Lyft drivers, and of harming Lyft as an organization. This shows the breach of property rights was not neutral or positive, but rather was an activity meant to harm the property owner, and to reduce the competitive landscape. Point 3: It was a clear violation of law. I include this last because law only loosely correlates with morality; however law draws the lines on the playing field and it is worth explicitly noting that Uber arranged for its employees to break federal law, repeatedly, for Uber's benefit. If you don't think property rights are important, go talk with a Libertarian.
- an_account 9y ago
  Which laws did Uber break? You said it was a "clear" violation, but it seems like there's a lot of debate. I don't know enough either way, so I'd like to hear your explanation.
OedipusRex 9y ago
"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Uber broadly invaded the privacy of the Lyft drivers, specifically violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Federal Wiretap Act and engaged in unfair competition"
- tyingq 9y ago
  For completeness, the earlier article[1] also quoted a lawyer who listed other reasons various parties might take action: "breach of contract, unfair business practices, stealing trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/12/hell-o-uber/

nodesocket 9y ago

It is no coincidence that Techcrunch loves writing negative articles about Uber almost weekly now.... It draws in page views which equals ad revenue from the constantly outraged.

dave5104 9y ago
Maybe Uber should stop doing negative things then.
- nodesocket 9y ago
  You think the same about United and now American? Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Not op, but: > You think the same about United... Yes. > ...and now American? Dunno, haven't heard of it. Probably. > Perhaps it just that the outraged minority now have a louder voice. I don't understand the mechanism you're proposing? You're insinuating that this "minority" is today no larger than it was for...similar scandals in the past, I guess? Then why would readership for news about said scandals rise? How does loudness factor into this? Does Uber go to 11? Anyway, you're wrong on the simplest of facts. It's not a minority: "Pollsters found generally negative attitudes toward United, with 47 percent viewing it unfavorably. Twenty-three percent see the airline favorably." (http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-poll-voters-prefer-united-airlines-to-trump http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/aviation/329687-pol...) > There is a financial benefit for them writing negative articles, outrage/scandal draws in viewers. And to think that for centuries, we trusted journalists without ever noticing that they were paid (paid!) to write what they write. It's basically corruption! And now that I think of it, I can no longer trust the baker! That corrupt flour-power-wannabe is taking money to make bread!
    - metaphorm 9y ago

david-cako 9y ago

Uber can't seem to catch a break these days, can they. Can anyone explain how this is different from Google and Facebook following you around with informatics everywhere you go on the internet? The favicon trick is a pretty good example.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Does this behavior warrant Uber catching a break? In my opinion, no. If Uber wants to catch a break, maybe they should stop behaving like this...
wickawic 9y ago
Google and Facebook don't (get caught) breaking each other's Terms of Service. I haven't read the leagalese, but I would imagine using Lyft's APIs to compete directly with their business is probably not kosher.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization. Another interesting question is how Uber has gone from being untouchable to assailable since the sexual harassment scandals. Uber is a populist creature. Their users used to protect them from harassment. Now, fewer people show up for protests or call their representatives to defend Travis and friends. Part of this is because, in most places, there are other options. Part of it is they lost their base. [1] See 18 U.S.C. § 1030 a/k/a the CFAA
- nikcub 9y ago
  > As someone else said, Google and Facebook haven't been caught breaching terms of service or accessing others' "computers" [1] without authorization. Google developed a hack for Safari to bypass the default third-party cookie blocking[0] Facebook made private profile information available to apps installed by friends[1] It seems rather arbitrary to distinguish Uber from the multiple occasions both Facebook and Google have had to answer or settle with the FTC for mishandling private user data. [0] http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-pays-17m-to-settle-safari-cookie-privacy-bypass-charge/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-pays-17m-to-settle-safar... [1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/092-3184/facebook-inc https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/092-3184/f...

jansho 9y ago

One after the other. To put a conspiracy/playful hat on - seriously this is not my serious opinion - could it be that Uber is getting set up? Not necessarily framed but "oops, this just got leaked" set of dominoes. Apparently quite a few people are mad at Uber, like Apple, and Google, and the taxi drivers ...

wavefunction 9y ago
The far more simple answer is that this is who Kalanick and Uber are.
- yawaworht12 9y ago
  The simplest answer is clicks and ad revenue.
Neliquat 9y ago
I postulate that many more companies do this type of behavior than you realize, and the heightened attention, and entrenched competition are sure to surface every little screwup. So basically its a bit of both.
alexbeloi 9y ago
I would guess it's a combination of intentional leaks and reporters smelling blood in the water. Maybe also the upper management did something to lose the favor of people that would normally protect them from these kind of events (big investors). Or at least put a stop to them. Something to note is that half (3/6) of Uber's board members are internal (Uber employees). So perhaps Kalanick is under no pressure of being ousted (maybe he has tie-breaking/veto privilege as the chairman) by the board, and so people that do want him removed are resorting to leaking bad press, in the hope that external pressure will force a change.
- jansho 9y ago
  > are resorting to leaking bad press, in the hope that external pressure will force a change. Well I'll hang my hat now and grab my pitchfork to join the mob...

dinedal 9y ago

How does anyone, when asked to build such a program, not raise an objection, or say something? The ethical compromise made on behalf of all involved is startling, if this is true.

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Well I'd want to know, what is your basis for calling it an ethical compromise?
vkou 9y ago
I just send the rockets up, where they come down is not my department. Why do people build weapons? Why do people pay taxes, that are used to fund immoral actions? Why do people provide services to immoral actors? Typically, the answer is money.
- idoh 9y ago
  On the tax side, we neither have control over whether to pay taxes nor how it is spent, so that's not a reasonable example.
  - vkou 9y ago
    You could always move to a country which does not spend your money on behavior you object to.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Or take advantage of tax deductions and credits in your country so as to reduce or even eliminate your tax liability: US-specific: * EV credit: $7500 * Solar panels on your roof: 30% federal tax credit (some states have incentives as well) * Mortgage interest/insurance * Educational expenses * Charity contributions * Tax loss harvesting of non-tax advantaged investment accounts Some of the above require itemizing.
- saghm 9y ago

alistproducer2 9y ago

Uber lost me as a customer a couple months ago. Now we just need some competition for lyft so they don't become the only game in town.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

freewizard 9y ago

From the code name of these projects from Uber: Heaven(God View) / Hell, you can pretty much tell this company thinks it's playing god. This is terrifying and must be stopped!

robk 9y ago
God view is a fairly common term though in many products. Nothing innovative from Uber in that usage
thesmallestcat 9y ago
Makes you think you should always choose the driest names possible, even for internal projects. That said, I agree, who would name a tool like this "Hell"??
- workergnome 9y ago
  Hell is "other people". -- Jean-Paul Sartre
notyourwork 9y ago
My team has a tool named Zeus, it is not a malicious application. It is simply the administration utility engineers/business use to manage our data and platform. This is no different than judging a book by its cover.

fencepost 9y ago

I'm not sure that a Lyft driver suing has as much bad potential for Uber as a class action of former Uber drivers. Given the reported churn there's likely a significant pool of those drivers, and since Uber apparently considers both Lyft and McDonald's as competitors, it seems likely that many of them are not feeling wealthy. IIRC the previous coverage noted that Uber was providing incentives to drivers who were using both systems, including both bonuses and steering passengers to the both-systems drivers to incentivize them to drop Lyft and only drive for Uber. The corollary of that is that there are a bunch of Uber-only drivers and former drivers who had their incomes hurt by Uber's redirection of profitable fares to 2-system drivers. THAT may be actionable, and a class action of former drivers seems like it wouldn't be that hard to put together.

wbl 9y ago
How is it actionable? Uber is under no obligation to give any driver rides. Favoring ones with a better BATNA is just good business.
- fencepost 9y ago
  This would likely depend on the terms of the contract with the drivers and on what statements if any were made to drivers about how rides were allocated, prioritized, etc. If the drivers had been led to believe that ride allocation was "fair" (based on distance, predicted arrival time, etc.) or under their control (based on rides being presented to multiple drivers and assigned to the first responder) then finding that it was actually weighted in favor of people driving for Lyft might be a problem for them. This also goes back to the principle of "anyone can sue for anything" as long as it's not frivolous, and this doesn't seem like it'd be considered such. A suit might not be successful, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least considered.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

There is something weird about the tactics of Uber execs. I don't think it's all an ethics failure. A lot of the lying and cheating they do seems like an objectively poor risk/reward proposition and I think many companies would not even get to the ethics question because they would stop when realizing the ideas are stupid when you add up the negatives. Stealing Google's autonomous auto IP could be a crime that actually moves the needle for the company (if it turns out they are guilty), so I guess they at least had significant upside with that one.

Spooky23 9y ago
It's not weird at all. It looks pretty obviously like a pump and dump scheme. This behavior is fraud, and i bet the juiciest stuff is yet to come. I'm sure the criminal complaint coming from some US Attorney will reveal that somebody was cashing out in private markets. This is no different than a boiler room.
- mvindahl 9y ago
  Excellent point. I, too, had been wondering about Uber's priorities. Realizing that the stock valuation at the time of IPO is their only guiding metric has made the pieces fall into place for me.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  I don't agree with that. I think it's related to the fundamental nature of speculative capitalism. This is Uber 'virtue signaling'. With regard to stock market valuation, what humans might consider values is reversed. Stock market speculators think (or are designed to think, in the case of software agents) like sharks, not community members or citizens or team members. The equation is 'feed or die' and value is intentionally the only factor. The common denominator of all these Uber behaviors is this: aggressive or even psychotic competitiveness, beyond any conceivable rule or law. w.r.t their stock valuation this is virtue signaling. For this behavior not to benefit them, they have to not only LOSE the lawsuit in question but also have it damage them more than they gained in 'appearance of psychotic competitiveness'. That's possible, but it's really important to understand the virtue signalling aspect. If the behavior persuades a bunch of amoral stock speculators that Uber is their kind of company it can directly translate into capital valuation that can in turn be spent on lawyers for trying to win the legal cases. And since the value proposition here is establishing a giant multinational corporation that ignores any and all laws, documenting additional laws or rules broken only underscores the value proposition. Virtue signalling… in Hell. (literally!)

Dangeranger 9y ago

Is there a separate lawsuit from Lyft Inc., or is the sole lawsuit originating as a class action filed on the behalf of the driver(s)? It would seem to me that the Lyft company has the strongest case here against Uber based on a violation of the terms of service for the private API that Uber abused. If Lyft were successful in their lawsuit, that would lend confidence to a follow-on suit by drivers.

artursapek 9y ago

Uber can't seem to stay out of the news.

beedogs 9y ago
Because they're a horrible company run by criminals.

phoenixProgram 9y ago

As bad as this is, techcrunch should be noted for its bravery in using a term that is sensitive with Christians. I'm not sure exactly why common sense and decency has fallen to a level where a name like "Hell" can describe any program invented by human device. That is, outside of civilian terror. Supposedly the government maintains some monopoly on civilian terror for the greater good, and leaves the meaning of that up to the civilians who have a little experience in how that term is used or abused by those who make claims on the greater good. The notion that corporations can terrorize civilians outside of this moral universe is not acceptable. We can't allow a chaos of civilian terror that is "made legal" by some court decision. The notion that democracy will devolve into a paroxysm of legal terror must be treated seriously and swiftly by those who are equipped to handle the mental load.

sidcool 9y ago

Uber might become the Napster of our times. Although I wish it doesn't happen.

moomin 9y ago

Is it just me, or would it save Uber a lot of time if they just got the lawyers to go over discovery in one pass for every project they run? It might be erm... tantamount to admitting most of your activity is subject to legal challenge but the cost savings would be astronomical.

p0nce 9y ago

Uber keeps being Uber, a shady investment and value-destroying business.

edlebert 9y ago
I can't stomach using them anymore.

dudidi 9y ago

Can someone here tells me is Uber even trying to fix all the problems? Do they consider any of their controversial strategies morally wrong? Or they're just trying to make everything looks fine?