Is Uber ethical?

The Transportation Ministry handed down an indictment Tuesday at the Tel Aviv Traffic Court against Uber Israel for operating without a license.

It was the company’s way of getting around Israeli law, which does not allow drivers who lack an appropriate license to pick up passengers and charge for rides, as many Uber drivers do in more than 10,000 cities around the world (as of 2020).

Investigations revealed company-wide issues with gender discrimination and harassment and offered recommendations, prompting Uber and its investors to take action.

Allegations of sexual harassment & gender discrimination against Uber lead to company-wide investigation - Business and Human Rights Centre

Uber fired more than 20 employees following a separate internal investigation into gender bias and sexual harassment.

By failing to disclose the data breach and paying off the hackers, Uber may have broken FTC rules and state disclosure laws, according to The New York Times.

Uber previously banned drivers convicted of murder, terrorism, sexual assault and kidnapping from operating within the company.

AMSTERDAM, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The Dutch Data Protection Authority has fined Uber €825 million ($966 million) for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequately informing them, according to an August 17 decision reviewed by ‌Reuters.

In cooperation with the CNIL, the Dutch Data Protection Authority fined UBER B.V. and UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. EUR 824,990,000 for taking automated individual decisions concerning the drivers of its platform.

The Dutch data protection authority has fined ⁠Uber €825m ($966m) for deactivating driver ⁠accounts through automated systems without ​adequately informing them, according to a 17 August decision.

“Uber has committed ‌serious infringements” by deactivating driver accounts without ‌warning or human involvement, the organization’s deputy chair Monique Verdier said in a statement.

The Dutch data protection authority fined ⁠Uber €825m (£708m) last month for deactivating driver ⁠accounts through automated systems without ​adequate notice.

AMSTERDAM, Aug 21 (Reuters) - The Dutch Data Protection Authority has ⁠fined ⁠Uber €825 million ($966 million) for deactivating driver accounts ⁠through automated systems without adequately informing them, according to an August 17 decision reviewed by ​Reuters.

"Uber has committed serious infringements," in deactivating driver accounts without warning or human involvement, the organisation's deputy chair Monique Verdier said in a statement.

In August 2026, the Dutch data protection authority fined the company €825 million (around $959 million) over automated account deactivations that it said were carried out without enough notice, though Uber has said it will appeal.

AG James Joins Bipartisan Coalition Suing Uber for Misleading Customers with Difficult to Cancel Uber One Subscriptions

Today I am taking action to put an end to Uber’s misleading tactics and get New Yorkers their money back.”

The Uber Apps connect transportation providers or couriers with consumers seeking transportation or food delivery services.

In numerous instances, Uber claims that consumers in an Uber One membership will save certain amounts off ride bookings or food deliveries compared to those without an Uber One membership, and that Uber One consumers can “cancel anytime” without additional fees.

For example, many consumers report finding charges for Uber One on their credit card statements despite never authorizing enrollment in a paid Uber One membership.

So I was charged for a month of Uber one due to lack of proper way for a user to cancel Uber one subscription.” 85.

For example, it advertises Uber One on its website, the Uber Apps, and various other media as a way for customers to qualify for certain discounts or promotions on eligible rides or deliveries by paying a monthly or annual membership fee.

Uber Misrepresents the Purported Benefits of Subscr iption Plans, including that Consumers Can Cancel Uber One Subscriptions “Anytime” 19.

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

RALEIGH – Today, Attorney General Jeff Jackson and a bipartisan coalition of 22 attorneys general sued Uber for making misleading claims about its Uber One subscription service, failing to provide a simple way for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and charging customers without their consent.

Uber promoted its $9.99 a month Uber One subscription service as a way for customers to save money on rides and deliveries and told them they could cancel anytime.

The coalition’s lawsuit alleges Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One subscriptions without their consent and outlines complaints from consumers who said they found Uber One charges on their credit cards despite never knowingly signing up for the service.

Multistate Lawsuit Alleges That Uber Has Used Deceptive Enrollment, Billing, and Cancellation Practices in Offering Uber One Subscriptions

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against Uber on Monday, accusing the ride-sharing and delivery company of charging users for its optional subscription service without permission and making it hard to cancel it.

The FTC claims customers are misled about savings of about $25 a month when signing up for the Uber One subscription.

“Many Pennsylvanians rely on ride-share services such as Uber, and our review found that many were deceived into negative option subscriptions and higher costs,” Attorney General Sunday said.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber used a variety of deceptive and unfair practices in offering and selling Uber One subscription services, which Uber promotes as saving money on rides and deliveries.

The FTC sued Uber in April 2025 following an agency investigation and customer complaints, according to FTC attorney Paul Mezan.

Many customers faced long wait times and delays, Mezan said, and were charged again before they could fully cancel Uber One.

The coalition of states and the FTC want money back for customers and an order stopping Uber’s alleged violations of consumer protection laws.

Uber faces legal battle as 21 states join FTC in consumer protection lawsuit | DC News Now

The Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of New Hampshire’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

The complaint also alleges that Uber charged consumers before their billing date, including users whose free trial had not yet ended.

The FTC filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that Uber charges consumers for its subscription service, Uber One, through a negative option feature but has failed to provide a simple mechanism to stop recurring charges.

When signing up for Uber One, customers are wrongly promised savings of $25 a month.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit today against Uber, alleging the rideshare and delivery company charged consumers for its Uber One subscription service without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings, and made it difficult for users to cancel the service despite its “cancel anytime” promises.

Uber could face billions of dollars in fines after 21 states and the District of Columbia joined a federal agency’s lawsuit against the ride share company.

As part of its pitch to consumers, Uber One claimed that users could get $0 delivery fees and monthly savings of up to $25.

The Federal Trade Commission first filed a lawsuit against Uber in April alleging “deceptive billing and cancellation practices” in its Uber One program - a supposed money-saving subscription service.

Arizona is one of 21 states that joined a federal lawsuit against Uber

The complaint also alleges that Uber charged consumers before their billing date, including users whose free trial had not yet ended.

The Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Uber used a variety of deceptive and unfair practices in offering and selling Uber One subscription services, which Uber promotes as saving money on rides and deliveries, and then making it extremely difficult to cancel the service, once enrolled.

In numerous instances, Uber claims that consumers in an Uber One membership will save certain amounts off ride bookings or food deliveries compared to those without an Uber One membership, and that Uber One consumers can “cancel anytime” without additional fees.

Uber Misrepresents the Purported Benefits of Subscr iption Plans, including that Consumers Can Cancel Uber One Subscriptions “Anytime” 19.

For example, it advertises Uber One on its website, the Uber Apps, and various other media as a way for customers to qualify for certain discounts or promotions on eligible rides or deliveries by paying a monthly or annual membership fee.

Following completion of the ride or food delivery, Uber bills the cost to the consumer, deducts fees, and remits a portion of that amount to the provider or courier.

Uber One, which the company markets as a subscription offering with delivery fee savings and other benefits, promises members $25 a month and $0 in delivery fees.

The complaint alleges that Uber repeatedly charged customers without their informed consent and failed to honor the savings and benefits it promoted to subscribers.

Uber sued by FTC and states over deceptive billing and cancellation practices | TechSpot

Uber Eats, Fantuan, and HungryPanda will pay a combined $5,195,000 in restitution, civil penalties, and damages to more than 49,000 food delivery workers to resolve violations of the City’s Minimum Pay Rate for delivery workers.

Like many technology companies, Uber has been sued by a group of female engineers claiming that they were paid less than their male counterparts.

Uber has agreed to pay $4.4 million to resolve an Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner's 2017 charge of sex discrimination, the agency announced Wednesday.

A 2017 sexual discrimination charge led to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation in which the EEOC found “reasonable cause to believe that Uber permitted a culture of sexual harassment and retaliation against individuals who complained about such harassment.” As part of the settlement agreement, Uber will establish a fund of $4.4 million to compensate anyone who the EEOC determines experienced sexual harassment on or after January 2014, according to an EEOC release.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

COMPLAINT

Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that the ridesharing company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by charging fees to passengers who, because of their disabilities, take more time to enter a car.

Here, the DOJ complaint alleges three ADA violations: “Uber has failed to (1) ensure adequate vehicle boarding time for passengers with disabilities; (2) ensure equitable fares for passengers with disabilities; and (3) make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices of imposing wait time fees as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.” The complaint asks the court declare that these policies violate the ADA and to order Uber to modify its policies to comply with the ADA.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Uber on Friday, accusing the ride-hailing platform of discriminating against riders with disabilities by “routinely” denying service to wheelchair users and passengers with service dogs.

DOJ sues Uber for alleged discrimination against disabled

“Uber and its drivers also impose impermissible surcharges by charging cleaning fees related to service animals and cancellation fees to riders they have unlawfully denied service,” the lawsuit claims, alleging that Uber drivers “insult and demean people with disabilities or ask them inappropriate questions.”

Uber denies rides to passengers with disabilities, Justice Department claims in lawsuit - CBS News

The new lawsuit includes allegations from over a dozen people with disabilities, including blind passengers who alleged they experienced frequent ride denials and people who use wheelchairs or mobility aids who said Uber drivers refused to assist them or stow their devices.

The Justice Department has filed a $125 million lawsuit against Uber, alleging that the ride-sharing company discriminates against passengers with disabilities.

The EEOC said its investigation "found reasonable cause to believe that Uber permitted a culture of sexual harassment and retaliation against individuals who complained about such harassment, in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," according to a press release.

The United States further alleges that Uber violated the ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions by charging a wait time fee on rides where a rider with a disability needed more Case 3:21-cv-08735-WHA Document 43-1 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 28

The United States also alleges that Uber’s actions amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination and that the alleged discrimination against a person or group of persons raises an issue of general public importance.

On November 10, 2021, the United States filed a complaint under Title III of the ADA challenging Uber’s practice of charging “wait time” fees to passengers who, because of disability, take longer than two minutes to get in their Uber car.

On February 6, 2026, the United States filed a response to Uber’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing that, contrary to Uber’s arguments, Uber is a covered transportation company under Title III of the ADA and that the United States’ Complaint plausibly alleges that Uber violates Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations.

The United States further alleges that Uber violated the ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions by charging a wait time fee on rides where a rider with a disability needed more

The United States also alleges that Uber’s actions amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination and that the alleged discrimination against a person or group of persons raises an issue of general public importance.

In addition to the monetary damages to compensate aggrieved individuals subjected to Uber’s discrimination, the lawsuit demands that Uber pay a civil penalty to vindicate the public’s interest in eliminating disability discrimination.

The lawsuit seeks $125 million for individuals who have been subject to discrimination and previously submitted complaints to Uber or the Department.

The Department’s civil complaint alleges that Uber and its drivers routinely refuse to serve individuals with disabilities; impose impermissible surcharges by charging cleaning fees for service animal shedding and cancellation fees to riders whom Uber has unlawfully denied service; and refuse to reasonably modify Uber’s policies, practices, or procedures, where necessary, to avoid discriminating against riders with disabilities, including by denying individuals with mobility disabilities the option to sit in the front seat when needed.

Uber Commits To Changes And Pays Millions To Resolve Justice Department Lawsuit For Overcharging People With Disabilities

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 37, through its policies and practices of imposing “wait time” fees on passengers with disabilities who, because of disability, require more time than that allotted by Uber to board the vehicle.

Such discrimination includes Uber’s failure to: a. Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(i); b. Ensure equitable fares for transporting passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(d), 37.29(c); c. Make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures of charging a wait time fee as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.

In violation of the ADA, Uber has failed to (1) ensure adequate vehicle boarding time for passengers with disabilities; (2) ensure equitable fares for passengers with disabilities; and (3) make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices of imposing wait time fees as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.

Such discrimination includes Uber’s failure to: a. Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C.

Uber discriminates against passengers with disabilities and potential passengers with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

Uber sued by DOJ, accused of discriminating against disabled riders

By Heather Somerville SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] will pay $148 million for failing to disclose a massive data breach in 2016, marking a costly resolution to one of the biggest embarrassments and legal tangles the ride-hailing company has suffered.

On Wednesday, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi announced the company will be cutting 3,300 jobs, a tenth of its workforce worldwide.

Uber is laying off 10% of its global workforce as part of a move to streamline and simplify the ride-sharing company, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in an open message to employees published Wednesday on the company's website.

Because Uber and Lyft treat drivers as independent businesses, rather than employees covered by workplace laws, the report estimates that in Massachusetts in 2023 alone, the two companies avoided paying approximately $47 million in unemployment taxes, workers’ compensation, and paid family and medical leave insurance.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff Capriole filed this class action complaint alleging that Uber has misclassified its drivers as independent contractors, when they are employees under Massachusetts law and therefore entitled to employment protections under various provisions of the Massachusetts wage laws.

Capriole also filed the pending motion, asking the court to “immediately enjoin Uber from misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees” and to “require that Uber reclassify its drivers as employees and .

BACKGROUND Liu’s lawsuit challenges Uber’s practice of terminating its drivers when their aggregate passenger rating falls below a certain threshold.

BACKGROUND Liu’s lawsuit challenges Uber’s practice of terminating its drivers when their aggregate passenger rating falls below a certain threshold.

At the same time, the company is facing disputes over its treatment of drivers, including a high-profile legal battle in New York City over rules governing driver deactivations. Uber is also navigating uncertainty around autonomous vehicles as it races to become the leading robotaxi platform while cities push for stricter oversight, and competitors, like Waymo, expand their own services.

Uber Accused Of Covering Up Sexual Assault Numbers In New Lawsuit

Plaintiff John Capriole brings claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), based on Uber’s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors.1 Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief [#4] seeking a preliminary injunction to immediately enjoin Uber from misclassifying Massachusetts drivers as independent contractors and to require Uber to reclassify these drivers as employees and to comply with Massachusetts wage laws.

Plaintiff John Capriole brings this action, on his own behalf and on behalf of drivers who have worked in Massachusetts for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), based on Uber’s alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors.1 For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue [#12] to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and a forum selection clause is ALLOWED, and Defendants’ Emergency Motion for a Stay of All Proceedings Pending Resolution of their Motion to Transfer [#53] is DENIED as moot.

The ride-hailing company is laying off about 10% of its community operations team and asking remote employees to relocate to a city with an Uber office and work there three days a week, it said in a statement on Thursday.

Uber Layoffs: AI Prompts Cuts to Customer Service Jobs - Business Insider

The proposed Order further requires Uber to submit a report to the Commission if Uber discovers any “covered incident” involving unauthorized access or acquisition of personal information.

The proposed Order prohibits Uber from misrepresenting the extent to which it monitors or audits internal access to, or protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of, consumers’ personal information. It requires Uber to implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, and to undergo, and submit to the Commission, an initial and biennial third-party assessments of the comprehensive privacy program.

The proposed Order further requires Uber to submit a report to the Commission if Uber discovers any “covered incident” involving unauthorized access or

The Complaint further alleges that Uber failed to disclose the 2016 data breach to the Commission until November 2017, despite the pendency of a nonpublic Commission investigation of Uber’s privacy and data security practices when that breach occurred.

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing checks totaling $19,798,233 to drivers for Uber Technologies Inc., as part of a settlement with the Commission over allegations the ride-hailing company exaggerated the yearly and hourly income drivers could make in certain cities, and misled prospective drivers about the terms of its vehicle financing options.

Drivers allege that Uber's opaque AI-powered algorithm violates GDPR by using automated profiling to systematically suppress their earnings.

Relating to about 241,000 drivers across the EU and the UK, the claim alleges that Uber has unlawfully used automated decision-making, including profiling, in dynamically setting pay and allocating work.

Racial discrimination in the U.K. A lawsuit in the U.K. was filed based on the facial recognition system used by Uber.

Uber Rideshare Lawsuit – Forbes Advisor

As Uber fought to set up shop in cities around the globe, it saved millions of dollars in taxes by routing profits through Bermuda and other offshore jurisdictions.

Uber to Pay $290 Million and Lyft to Pay $38 Million in Largest Backpay Settlement OAG Has Ever Won; Full Amount Will Go to Drivers Who Were Cheated

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced two landmark settlements totaling $328 million with rideshare companies Uber and Lyft for cheating drivers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. The settlements resolve multi-year investigations into Uber and Lyft, which found that the companies’ policies withheld hard-earned pay from drivers and prevented them from receiving valuable benefits available under New York labor laws. The settlements announced today will return $328 million in back pay to drivers and institute a minimum driver “earnings floor,” paid sick leave, proper hiring and earnings notices, and other improvements in drivers’ working conditions. Uber will pay $290 million and Lyft will pay $38 million into two separate settlement funds which will be entirely distributed to current and former drivers. Eligible drivers can file a claim to receive the funds they are owed. Notices concerning the distribution will be delivered to drivers by mail, email and/or text message. Information on the submission, review, and distribution of claims is also available on the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) website.

If the Court has not entered this Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction by the Effective Date, UBER shall pay within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date or within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Final Judgment and Perm&nent Injunction, whichever is later.

response from UBER described in Paragraph 17, the Attorney General detennines that an enforcement action is in the public interest.

Uber paid $28.5 million to settle two class action claims in 2016 that involved similar concerns.

In 2016, Uber agreed to pay $10 million for false marketing.

Uber has also been repeatedly sued for safety issues and false advertising regarding safety issues. It repeatedly had to change its marketing regarding safety features and background checks and how it handled background checks.

Uber Rideshare Lawsuit – Forbes Advisor

Uber settles FTC suit over privacy violations

In response to the administrative action, Uber agreed to settlement terms to implement a privacy program and submit to regular external audits.

In addition to a privacy program and regular audits, the updated settlement adds a requirement that any customer data access incident that Uber reports to federal, state, or local authorities must also be reported to the FTC.

On April 12, 2018, Uber reached an expanded settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) over charges of misrepresentation of data privacy practices.

The FTC alleged that Uber did not monitor employee access to rider and driver information as promised, and similarly, did not secure rider information stored on Amazon web servers as claimed in assurances to customers.

The breach and subsequent failure to disclose prompted the FTC to expand its complaint to cite the incident as another instance of Uber’s misrepresentation of its data protection practices.

In 2017, the FTC charged Uber with misleading consumers about its information access and security practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

By Heather Somerville SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] will pay $148 million for failing to disclose a massive data breach in 2016, marking a costly resolution to one of the biggest embarrassments and legal tangles the ride-hailing company has suffered.

Uber will be required to report any data security incidents to states on a quarterly basis for the next two years, and implement a comprehensive information security program overseen by an executive officer who advises executive staff and Uber's board of directors.

On April 12, 2018, Uber reached an expanded settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) over charges of misrepresentation of data privacy practices.

In addition to a privacy program and regular audits, the updated settlement adds a requirement that any customer data access incident that Uber reports to federal, state, or local authorities must also be reported to the FTC.

The FTC alleged that Uber did not monitor employee access to rider and driver information as promised, and similarly, did not secure rider information stored on Amazon web servers as claimed in assurances to customers.

In response to the administrative action, Uber agreed to settlement terms to implement a privacy program and submit to regular external audits.

In 2017, the FTC charged Uber with misleading consumers about its information access and security practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The breach and subsequent failure to disclose prompted the FTC to expand its complaint to cite the incident as another instance of Uber’s misrepresentation of its data protection practices.

Uber drivers provide the company with their names, email addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses, profile pictures, Social Security numbers, driver’s license information, bank account information (including domestic routing and bank account numbers), vehicle registration information, and insurance information.

Uber also collects geolocation information on both drivers and riders when they are using the app.

Furthermore, Uber represented to the public and its customers that customer data was safely secured.

This relaxed security resulted in a data breach in May 2014, when an intruder accessed personal information of Uber drivers, including over 100,000 unencrypted names and driver’s license numbers, 215 unencrypted names, bank account, and domestic routing numbers, and 84 unencrypted names and Social Security numbers.

Uber riders provide their names, email addresses, postal addresses, and profile pictures.

The FTC alleged that Uber falsely told its customers their personal information was monitored by data security specialists on an ongoing basis and that Uber was providing reasonable security for its customers’ personal information stored in databases.

Dara Khosrowshahi November 27, 2017 Page 2 access, use, disclosure, or loss.”6 It further details administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for data protection, as well as company policies for reporting and responding to data breaches.7 Despite the safeguards in place, according to recent reports, Uber’s board commissioned an investigation by an outside law firm, which discovered the recently revealed hack and the failure to disclose it.8 Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on August 15, 2017, that Uber agreed to a consent order addressing its privacy and data security practices.

Carranza claims Uber’s practices violate state unfair competition and false advertising laws, along with invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

“Uber failed consumers in two key ways: First by misrepresenting the extent to which it monitored its employees’ access to personal information about users and drivers, and second by misrepresenting that it took reasonable steps to secure that data,” said FTC Acting Chairman Maureen K.

Uber Settles FTC Allegations that It Made Deceptive Privacy and Data Security Claims | Federal Trade Commission

Blog: FTC says Uber took a wrong turn with misleading privacy, security promises

The FTC’s complaint also alleges that despite Uber’s claim that data was “securely stored within our databases,” Uber’s security practices failed to provide reasonable security to prevent unauthorized access to consumers’ personal information in databases Uber stored with a third-party cloud provider.

As a result, an intruder accessed personal information about Uber drivers in May 2014, including more than 100,000 names and driver’s license numbers that Uber stored in a datastore operated by Amazon Web Services.

Uber Settles FTC Allegations that It Made Deceptive Privacy and Data Security Claims

“After misleading consumers about its privacy and security practices, Uber compounded its misconduct by failing to inform the Commission that it suffered another data breach in 2016 while the Commission was investigating the company’s strikingly similar 2014 breach,” said Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K.

After the announcement of last year’s proposed settlement, the Commission learned that Uber had failed to disclose a significant breach of consumer data that occurred in 2016 -- in the midst of the FTC’s investigation that led to the August 2017 settlement announcement.

This time, the intruders used the access key to download from Uber’s cloud storage unencrypted files that contained more than 25 million names and email addresses, 22 million names and mobile phone numbers, and 600,000 names and driver’s license numbers of U.S. Uber drivers and riders.

Uber Settles FTC Allegations that It Made Deceptive Privacy and Data Security Claims

The revised proposed complaint further notes that Uber paid the intruders $100,000 through its third-party “bug bounty” program and failed to disclose the breach to consumers or the Commission until November 2017.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits Uber from making any misrepresentations about the extent to which Uber monitors or audits internal access to consumers’ Personal Information or the extent to which Uber protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of consumers’ Personal Information.

As a result of these failures, on or about May 12, 2014, an intruder was able to gain access to Uber’s Amazon S3 Datastore using an access key that one of Uber’s engineers had posted to GitHub, a code-sharing site used by software developers.

Count one of the proposed complaint alleges that Uber’s representation that it closely monitored and audited internal access to consumers’ personal information was false or misleading in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act in light of Uber’s subsequent failure to monitor and audit such access between August 2015 and May 2016.1 The proposed complaint also alleges that Uber failed to provide reasonable security for consumer information stored in a third-party cloud storage service provided by Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) called the Amazon Simple Storage Service (the “Amazon S3 Datastore”).

Part II of the proposed order requires Uber to implement a mandated comprehensive privacy program that is reasonably designed to (1) address privacy risks related to the development and management of new and existing products and services for consumers, and (2) protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ personal information.

The proposed Order prohibits Uber from misrepresenting the extent to which it monitors or audits internal access to, or protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of, consumers’ personal information.

The move marks Uber's first round of layoffs directly tied to AI efficiency and its second workforce reduction in less than two months.

Uber Job Cuts Put AI Efficiency in Focus

AI Wipes Out Customer Service Jobs at Microsoft, Uber, CBA - Bloomberg

Instead, Uber followed its corporate policy: unless the incident resulted in a citation or death, it would only review safety complaints if it received enough of them, no matter how dangerous the driver’s behavior.

Australian authorities fined Uber for neglecting to report over 500 serious incidents, some resulting in hospitalizations, and witnessed “a concerning surge in UberEats driver fatalities.”3 Instances range from assaults due to route choices in Montreal, fatalities following robbery attempts in Calgary, assaults on drivers in Australia, reports of violence in India, racially motivated verbal and physical assault in the United Kingdom, and drivers attacked and carjacked in Brazil, resulting in them demanding increased protection against theft and robbery.

Attorneys for the family told ABC News that the arbitration record included prior complaints lodged with Uber against Tran, among them a rider who described a trip with him as "the least safe" ride they had experienced and a second who wrote that "he cannot drive."

Uber announced its settlement with 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, paying a penalty and promising to make its data security more robust.

A new law raising the minimum wage for food delivery drivers in New York City hit a speed bump Thursday when the parent companies of Uber Eats, DoorDash and other food delivery apps sued the city in state court to put the brakes on the pay raise.

Dara Khosrowshahi Cut 3,400 Jobs, But Swears It's Not AI.

For example, a 2019 audit by New Jersey’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development found that due to the misclassification of drivers as contractors rather than employees, Uber owed $523 million in taxes for unemployment and disability insurance from 2014 to 2018.

Uber data hack could be investigated by EU privacy regulators

HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) today finalized penalties against Uber Technologies Inc. and its Pennsylvania subsidiaries (collectively, Uber) for operating without Commission authority from February to August 2014 and for failure to respond to discovery requests, resolving a formal complaint filed by the PUC’s independent Bureau of Investigation of Enforcement (I&E).

“Uber Agrees to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges that it Recruited Prospective Drivers with Exaggerated Earnings Claims.” January 19.

Uber Agrees to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Recruited Prospective Drivers with Exaggerated Earnings Claims

$20 million FTC settlement requires Uber to have proof for earnings, auto financing claims

Uber Agrees to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges That It Recruited Prospective Drivers with Exaggerated Earnings Claims | Federal Trade Commission

In addition to imposing a $20 million judgment against Uber, the stipulated order prohibits the company from misrepresenting drivers’ earnings and auto finance and lease terms.

The FTC alleges that Uber claimed on its website that uberX drivers’ annual median income was more than $90,000 in New York and over $74,000 in San Francisco.

The order also bars Uber from making false, misleading, or unsubstantiated representations about drivers’ income; programs offering or advertising vehicles or vehicle financing or leasing; and the terms and conditions of any vehicle financing or leasing.

“Many consumers sign up to drive for Uber, but they shouldn’t be taken for a ride about their earnings potential or the cost of financing a car through Uber,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

“This settlement will put millions of dollars back in Uber drivers’ pockets.”

FTC to Send Refund Checks to Uber Drivers as Part of FTC Settlement | Federal Trade Commission

As part of a settlement with the FTC, Uber agreed to pay $20 million, which the FTC is using to send 88,799 checks to affected drivers.

When Uber’s promised earnings have not materialized, and Drivers have attempted to cancel their auto agreements, they have incurred significant monetary harm.

COMPLAINT FOR

Platkin and the Division of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced today that New Jersey is joining a coalition of 22 states or county law enforcement agencies suing Uber Technologies, LLC, and Uber USA, LLC, the operators of the rideshare and delivery company, alleging a variety of deceptive and unfair practices related to the Uber One subscription service.

Uber framed the proposal as a protective measure against predatory lawyers, and claimed these lawyers use misleading ads promising large settlements to attract customers when in reality the lawyers take home much of the money.

The first ballot measure emerged late last year from Uber. The company filed a proposal in October that would give victims of car accidents who sue for personal injury 75% of any legal payout, and cap what attorneys can take home in contingency fees to 25%.

For a period of over two years, Uber transferred those data to Uber's headquarters in the US, without using transfer tools.

Dutch SA imposes a fine of 290 million euro on Uber because of transfers of drivers' data to the US

The circumstances regarding Sullivan’s violations of the law involve two separate hacks of Uber’s databases—one in 2014 and another in 2016.

“Uber has leveraged AI and deep machine learning to implement deeply intrusive and exploitative compensation-setting systems that have damaged the livelihoods of thousands of drivers, causing unparalleled harm for the hard-working individuals who comprise nearly the whole labor force of the entire ridesharing industry,” he claims.

James Farrar, the director of WIE, said: “Uber has leveraged artificial intelligence and machine learning to implement deeply intrusive and exploitative pay-setting systems that have damaged the livelihoods of thousands of drivers.

New York state’s investigation into Uber and Lyft’s wage theft was handled by the New York’s Labor Bureau, part of the Division for Social Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Meghan Faux and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

Did Uber authorize payments to outside parties in connection with the incident? If so, please provide additional details, including the amounts, dates, method of transfer, as well as the purpose of such payments, including whether the purpose of such payments was, even in part, to conceal the incident itself.

Among other things, the order prohibits Uber from misrepresenting the extent to which it protects the privacy, confidentiality, security, or integrity of any personal information.9 The order also requires Uber to implement a comprehensive program to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the personal information it collects and maintains.10 Our goal is to understand what steps Uber has taken to investigate what occurred, restore and maintain the integrity of its systems, and identify and mitigate potential consumer harm and identity theft-related fraud against Federal programs.

On what date did Uber first learn that hackers accessed user data stored on a third-party cloud-based service?

In January 2015, Uber released a report entitled “Review and Assessment of Uber's Privacy Program."4 The review that Uber's outside counsel conducted determined that Uber had in place "appropriate policies and procedures" in several areas, including data security, incident management and response, data retention, and accountability.5 Though a technical audit was not part of this review, the report found that, "Uber has put in place and continues to develop a data security program that is reasonably designed to protect Consumer Data from unauthorized Dara Khosrowshahi, 2016 Data Security Incident, UBER NEWSROOM (Nov.

Dara Khosrowshahi Chief Executive Officer Uber Technologies, Inc. 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA94103 Dear Mr. Khosrowshahi: We write today regarding reports that, in late 2016, Uber learned that it had suffered a significant data security incident.

Justice Department is investigating whether employees of Uber Technologies Inc. violated U.S. laws against foreign bribery, according to sources.

The suit points to thousands of sexual-assault lawsuits filed against Uber and alleges that the board caused "Uber to engage in unlawful conduct."

Uber Lawsuit Targets CEO, Board Over Driver Assault Claims - Business Insider

Uber appeals California’s $59M fine over data on sexual assaults

On Thursday, a federal jury in Arizona found that Uber was liable in the case because the driver was acting as an “apparent agent” of the company during the incident.

Taxi companies allege Uber isn’t obeying French labor laws.

Uber Rideshare Lawsuit – Forbes Advisor

Three public pension funds this week sued Uber's chief executive and board members alleging company directors collected millions of dollars in safety-linked bonuses while knowingly concealing from shareholders and the public the true scale of sexual assault on the platform—allegedly more than 400,000 incidents from 2017 to 2022.

Uber Accused Of Covering Up Sexual Assault Numbers In New Lawsuit

The trial will be the first test of Uber's efforts to shield itself from liability for alleged assaults committed by its drivers, with thousands of cases pending in U.S. federal court.

5, ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by a driver in Arizona when she was 19, a verdict that could influence thousands of similar cases against the ride-hailing company.

French authorities began investigating Uber for possible offenses, including violating tax laws and operating a taxi service without a permit.

“Uber’s operations as a motor carrier without a license constitute a serious violation of the Public Utility Code that warrants a substantial civil penalty,” said Commissioner Powelson.

PUC Orders $11.4 Million Penalty Against Uber for Operating Without Authority in 2014 | PA PUC

Uber Technologies, Inc. has agreed to implement a comprehensive privacy program and obtain regular, independent audits to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the ride-sharing company deceived consumers by failing to monitor employee access to consumer personal information and by failing to reasonably secure sensitive consumer data stored in the cloud.

The court approved the class action settlement with no admission of liability by Uber.

The court approved the class action settlement with no admission of liability by Uber.

The court approved the class action settlement with no admission of liability by Uber.

Today, Uber is still embroiled in legal battles. The company has been challenged by its drivers in several countries over whether they should be classed as workers or self-employed.

Even though Uber doesn't want to treat its drivers as full-time employees, Khosrowshahi said believes they're getting the short end of the stick.

On top of the TFL decision, Uber is awaiting a decision from an employment tribunal which is ruling on whether drivers for the company are workers or self-employed.

Uber immediately ran foul of the authorities, landing a €100,000 fine for misleadingly advertising the new service as a car pool.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber USA LLC (collectively, “Uber”) for alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence

On July 18, 2022, the Department of Justice announced that it entered a multi-million-dollar settlement agreement with Uber Technologies, Inc. to resolve the lawsuit. Under the agreement, Uber will offer millions of dollars in compensation to over 65,000 Uber riders who were charged the discriminatory fees due to a disability.

On September 11, 2025, the Department sued Uber Technologies, Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act for discriminating against passengers with disabilities, including blind individuals who use service animals and those who use mobility devices including stowable wheelchairs, by routinely refusing to serve these individuals, imposing impermissible charges, and refusing to reasonably modify Uber’s policies to avoid discrimination.

Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday against Uber Technologies, Inc., seeking $125 million on behalf of passengers with disabilities who they say have faced discrimination from the global rideshare company.

The Department of Justice has filed a suit alleging Uber Technologies Inc. discriminates against passengers with disabilities, including those who use service animals and wheelchairs.

If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that Uber has violated the AOD, Uber shall pay to the OAG the reasonable cost, if any, of obtaining such determination and of enforcing this AOD, including without limitation legal fees, expenses, and court costs.

Such discrimination includes Uber’s failure to: a. Ensure adequate boarding time for passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(i); b. Ensure equitable fares for transporting passengers with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) and 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(d), 37.29(c); c. Make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures of charging a wait time fee as applied to passengers who, because of disability, require more time to board the vehicle.

COMPLAINT

The Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks restitution for harmed consumers, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of local and federal consumer protection law.

In the example below, Uber confirms cancellation and states “Moving forward, you will not be charged for Uber One”: 3:25-cv-3477 Case 3:25-cv-03477 Document 1 Filed 04/21/25 Page 37 of 44

Attorney General Platkin Announces Lawsuit Against Uber for Consumer Protection Violations - New Jersey Office of Attorney General

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

In addition, in March 2022, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

and Uber B.V. were each fined €2.12 million by the Italian data protection authority for alleged privacy violations stemming from an investigation conducted in 2018.

Judge Rejects Uber's "Technology Company" Defense, Holds Company Liable as Common Carrier and Rules Proposition 22 Does Not Shield Uber from Liability

Normandin-Parker’s parents were also angered that Uber initially fought to prevent them from talking publicly about the arbitration decision.

Following its investigation, the Office of the New York State Attorney General (OAG) negotiated a settlement with Uber that does the following:

James obtained $290 million from Uber and $38 million from Lyft in a landmark settlement, which also instituted a “minimum earnings level” for drivers, paid sick leave, proper hiring and earnings notifications, and other improvements to drivers’ working conditions.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA's most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim.

Uber's chief executive has pledged to fight on after the ride-hailing company was denied a new private hire operator's licence for the city of London.

Bowman said Uber delayed implementing the policy because of ongoing public discourse about gender and the potential for gender discrimination accusations, which became a reality when male drivers filed a class action in November.

Uber’s algorithm, which governs who gets rides and how much they get paid, had detected a “continued pattern of improper use”, and the company had barred him from the system.

"Uber's decision to cover up this breach was a blatant violation of the public's trust," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

) ) COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Respondent” or “Uber”), a corporation, has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges: 1.

The Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“OAG”) has investigated Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) pursuant to New York Executive Law § 63(12).

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and a bipartisan coalition of 20 other attorneys general today joined a lawsuit previously filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Uber Technologies, LLC and Uber USA, LLC (Uber) for misleading customers by trapping them in recurring subscriptions to its Uber One service that were exceedingly difficult to cancel.

HARRISBURG — Attorney General Dave Sunday announced that his office, along with 20 other Attorneys General, has joined a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Uber Technologies, LLC, regarding deceptive practices by the popular ride-share and delivery company.

The suit also seeks a court order requiring Uber to update its policies to comply with the ADA and to properly train its staff and drivers.

Lawsuit: Uber discriminated against passengers with disabilities, says DOJ | KRON4

Attorney General Sunday’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

Attorney General Sunday Joins Federal Lawsuit Against Uber on Behalf of Pennsylvanians who were Deceived by Negative Option Subscriptions

Attorney General Sunday’s lawsuit seeks restitution, as well as penalties, costs, and an injunction against Uber for alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Consumer Protection Act and the U.S. Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

In June, the state agency responsible for regulating Uber and Lyft ruled that ride-hailing drivers were considered employees under AB-5, and a month earlier, a group of attorneys general from the state, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego sued both companies over their refusal to reclassify workers.

New York Attorney General Letitia James is encouraging rideshare drivers who believe they were underpaid by Uber and Lyft to file claims on or before January 31, 2025 to receive the funds they are due under settlements reached by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

Of particular note are proceedings in California, where on May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court (the “Court”) against Uber and Lyft, Inc., alleging that drivers are misclassified, and sought an 48

In August 2020, respondent California Labor Commissioner brought her own enforcement action, similarly alleging that Uber and Lyft violated Labor Code provisions and wage orders by misclassifying drivers as independent contractors.

Uber Technologies Inc. executives and board directors have fostered a culture of noncompliance and lax safety that has exposed the ride-hailing giant to thousands of sexual harassment and disability discrimination lawsuits, according to a new shareholder derivative suit in California federal court Monday.