# #UberFELONY | Excerpts from LA and SF Dist. Attys. Uber Background Checks Lawsuit



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

the link to the 62-page pdf is right in the beginning of the article...


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

*read 62-page doc. here*

_for excerpts read below..._


----------



## mjo (Jun 2, 2015)

I read the complaint. I could not upload it. It basically says Uber lies when it talks about its background checks being "industry leading" and gives voluminous examples of other "incorrect statements". They are also going after Uber for the "Safe Rider Fee" and the airport fee. Uber signed an agreement with the California PUC not to access airports without permission and then did it anyway. It paints a very ugly picture of Uber.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt....

<< Systemic failures in Uber's background check process came to light through the discovery process in this enforcement action, including the fact that in Los Angeles alone, registered sex offenders, a kidnapper, identity thieves, burglars, and a convicted murderer had passed Uber's "industry leading" background check. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Because Uber's background check process only identifies sex offense convictions less than seven years old, and must reply upon publicly-available sex-offender data sources that omit 30,000 registered sex offenders in California, Uber's process will miss any one of the more than 30,000 registered sex offenders who fall into this category and whose conviction is more than seven years old, and Uber's process will miss them 100 percent of the time. 
This means, for example, that Uber's background check process will NEVER disqualify a registered sex offender who applies to become an Uber driver in 2015 who was convicted in 2007 for molesting his daughter or for committing felony sexual battery on a stranger, so long as the applicant had successfully petitioned to have his name removed from the public website. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

this is an incredible read


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt....

<< 
When confronted through the discovery process in this enforcement action with the fact that Uber's background check process has systemic deficiencies that prevent Uber from identifying a large number of sex offenders, Uber made assertions designed to mislead consumers into believing that Uber's process is as comprehensive as the Live Scan/CALDOJ Process. The Sullivan blog continues to lie to the public and assert that Uber searches the National Sex Offender Registry. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 1 was convicted of second degree murder, a felony, in Los Angeles in 1982. After spending 26 years in prison, he was released on parole in 2008. ... In November of 2014, less than seven years after being released from prison, he became an Uber driver. Uber Driver #1 drove for Uber in Los Angeles until May 28, 2015 and provided 1,168 rides to consumers. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 2 was convicted of committing lewd or lascivious acts against a child under 14, a felony, on July 25, 1999. He is required to register as a sex offender in the State of California. He applied for, and was granted, exclusion from the California Megan's Law Website. And his name does not appear on the NSOPW. In February of 2014, he applied to drive for Uber. A background report generated by Hirease on February 17, 2014 did not uncover Driver # 2's conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14, or the fact that he is a registered sex offender. Driver # 2 drove for Uber until May of 2015. He provided 5,697 rides to Uber passengers, including unaccompanied children. Uber's background check process did not identify Driver # 2's conviction or his status as a registered sex offender because Uber's process (a) does not access criminal record repositories of unlimited duration and (b) does not access databases with complete criminal history information. The Live Scan/CALDOJ Process does not have the same limitations and would have identified Driver # 2's criminal history. >>


----------



## mjo (Jun 2, 2015)

It goes on and on and on


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 3 was convicted of felony sexual exploitation of children in Wyoming on November 7, 2005. According to publicly available court records, he was found to be in violation of his probation in April 2011. He was not released from probation until March 2013. He registers as a sex offender in the State of California. In August 2013, he applied to drive for Uber. A background report generated by Hirease on August 19, 2013 did not uncover Driver # 3's conviction for felony sexual exploitation of children, his status as a registered sex offender, or the fact that he was on probation until just five months earlier. He drove for Uber in Los Angeles until May 22, 2015 and provided 3,173 rides to consumers, including unaccompanied children. California law allowed Hirease to report Driver # 3's conviction to Uber because he was released from probation within seven years of the background check. Uber's background check process did not identify Driver # 3's conviction or his status as a registered sex offender because Uber's process (a) does not access databases with complete criminal history information, (b) does not access criminal record repositories of unlimited duration, and (c) does not actually go back as far as the law allows. The Live Scan/CALDOJ Process does not have the same limitations and would have identified Driver # 3's criminal history. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

mjo said:


> It goes on and on and on


yes! this is a 62-page court document and I'm providing some brief highlights for those who don't have the time to read through a 62-page court document


----------



## mjo (Jun 2, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> yes! this is a 62-page document and I'm providing sone brief highlights for those who don't have the time to read through a 62-page court document


Thank you for doing this.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

This is the same sort of issue Houston had with the background checks and why Uber finally started insisting on Houston drivers getting their TNC license involving a fingerprint check. But they won't unless the city insists and it's a big market they don't want to lose.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 7 was convicted in 2010 of 29 felony counts of theft, grand theft, filing false or fraudulent real estate trust deeds, and money laundering. Court records show that he victimized nine people - three of whom were elderly or disabled - and that he stole $3 million. The victims were only able to recover $1 million. On information and belief, he drives for Uber in the Los Angeles area. California law allowed Uber's background check provider to report Driver # 7's conviction to Uber because he was convicted within seven years of the background check. Uber's background check process either failed to identify Uber Driver # 7's criminal history, or identified the history and passed him nonetheless. On information and belief, Uber's background check process did not identify Driver # 7's conviction for assault because Uber's process does not access databases with complete criminal history information. The Live Scan/CALDOJ Process does not have the same limitations and would have identified Driver # 7's criminal history. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
Uber Driver # 8 was convicted of felony robbery on July 5, 2006. He was sentenced to serve a term of two years in prison. He was subsequently convicted of driving on a suspended license in 2009 and again in 2010. Also in 2010, Driver # 8 was convicted of a felony for being an ex-felon in possession of a gun. Uber Driver # 8 began driving for Uber in June 2013 in Los Angeles. In March 2014, he was arrested for residential burglary. He was convicted of that crime in August 2014. And he is currently in state prison serving his sentence for this offense. Uber did not deactivate his account until June 2015. California law allowed Hirease to report Driver # 8's criminal history to Uber because he was convicted of robbery and being an ex-felon in possession of a gun within seven years of the background check. Uber's background check process either 
failed to identify Uber Driver # 8's convictions for residential burglary or being an ex-felon in possession of a gun, or identified the history and passed him nonetheless. On information and belief, Uber's background check process did not identify Driver # 8's conviction for robbery because Uber's process does not access databases with complete criminal history information. The Live Scan/CALDOJ Process does not have the same limitations and would have identified Driver # 8's criminal history. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 9's criminal history includes convictions for misdemeanor identity theft in 2008, as well as for felony identity theft in 2012. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 10 was convicted of 14 counts of felony identity theft in 2011. After his release from incarceration, he applied to work for a commercial transportation company but was rejected after undergoing a fingerprint-based background check. He began driving for Uber in February of 2013 in Los Angeles... >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 20 was convicted in 2007 of misdemeanor reckless driving and driving in excess of 100 miles per hour. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 23 received a citation at SFO on May 4, 2014. He provided San Francisco Police with a driver's license that had expired in December of 2007. When the citing police officer noticed that the photograph on the driver's Uber profile did not look like Driver # 23, Driver # 23 stated that he was using his brother's Uber account. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber Driver # 24 was taken into custody at SFO on May 21, 2014. Uber Driver # 24 provided San Francisco Police with two different names, neither of which matched any valid driver's license. When the San Francisco Police officer noticed that the photograph on the driver's Uber profile did not look like Driver # 24, Driver # 24 stated that he was using the account of his cousin. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< During 2014 and 2015 Uber has consistently repeated its misleading statements about the quality of its background checks and commitment to safety in response to a series of well-publicized incidents involving Uber drivers. Trotting out the company line about its background check process is a corporate policy set at the very top of the organization. In September, 2013 Uber CEO Travis Kalanick wrote in an internal email, "we need to make sure that these writers don't come away thinking we are responsible, even when things do go bad. . . [T]hese writers are starting to think that we are somehow liable for these incidents that aren't even real in the first place." >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< On December 31, 2013, an Uber driver struck and killed a six-year-old girl while driving in San Francisco. In response to the incident, the next day Uber posted a "Statement on New Year's Eve Accident" on its blog in which the company represented, "We are committed to improving the already best in class safety and accountability of the Uber platform, for both riders and drivers." Two weeks after Uber made its statement, the San Francisco Business Times reported that the driver had been convicted of reckless driving in Florida in September 2004. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
In February 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported that a 24-year-old Uber driver had a felony conviction for residential burglary in 2010, a misdemeanor conviction for criminal damage to property in 2009, another misdemeanor conviction in 2008 for breaking into a car to steal a GPS and satellite radio receiver, a history of speeding tickets, and had his license suspended twice in 2008. Uber posted an apology on its website: "[W]e have already taken steps to prevent this from happening again, by expanding our background check process to set new industry-leading standards. . . We are sincerely sorry for this error, and want to assure all riders that we are taking the necessary steps to fix it and build the safest option for consumers." >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Uber's response to well-publicized incidents involving its drivers is to repeat its misleading mantra about the quality of its background check process, and to continue to assure the 
public that it does everything it can to ensure its customers' safety. Uber continues to repeat its claims that it aims "to go above and beyond local requirements to ensure your comfort and security," that it "is committed to connecting you to the safest ride on the road," that it makes "continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber riders," and that it goes "above and beyond local requirements in every city we operate." >>


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Uber's background checks go back only 7 years as stated in <Edit: CA> law for _*employers.*_ I quoted this elsewhere.

After 7 yrs the idea is to allow the person who.served time to not have to account for his actions after the 7-yr limit.

PROBLEM? Raider, LLC./Uber are not the employers of drivers, as of yet.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< Within six weeks of creating a blog posting devoted to safety in which Uber represented, "We'll continue innovating, refining, and working diligently to ensure we're doing everything we can to make Uber the safest experience on the road," Uber mounted a campaign to defeat Assembly Bill 612. As part of this campaign, Uber created its June 11, 2014 blog posting with the heading "California: Get on Board" in which it described the legislation as "a flagrant attempt to stymie innovation and competition." >>


----------



## mjo (Jun 2, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> Uber's background checks go back only 7 years as stated in law for _*employers.*_ I quoted this elsewhere.
> 
> After 7 yrs the idea is to allow the person who.served time to not have to account for his actions after the 7-yr limit.
> 
> PROBLEM? Raider, LLC./Uber are not the employers of drivers, as of yet.


The complaint states that is not the law. Federal law and FCRA allow a look back indefinitely. Uber looks back 7 years for a conviction. If someone was convicted ten years ago and released from jail last week, Uber's background check would not pick it up.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt regarding having meters in iPhones...

<< California Business and Professions Code section 12500.5 prohibits anyone from using a weighing, measuring or counting instrument or device for commercial purposes in the State of California without first obtaining approval of the measuring or counting instrument or device from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Business and Professions Code section 12500.5 states, in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful to sell or use for commercial purposes any weight or measure, or any weighing, measuring, or counting instrument or device, of a type or design that has not first been so approved by the department . . . . >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt regarding meters in iPhones...

<< From at least 2010 up until May 19, 2015, Uber used its Uber App technology in California to calculate each and every fare without having ever submitted the Uber App technology to DMS for type evaluation.

Uber violated Business and Professions Code section 12500.5 with each use of the Uber App technology to calculate a customer's fare in California.

In October, 2010, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency sent Uber a cease- and-desist letter in which it informed Uber that, "Because you have a system that measures time and distance, you are clearly in violation of type certification requirements that are placed upon such devices by the Department of Agriculture's Weights and Measures Division." Uber's CEO at the time, Ryan Graves, posted the cease-and-desist letter on Uber's website and told a Techcrunch reporter, "We are working with the agencies [involved] to figure out their exact concerns and make sure that we're in compliance." But, Uber did not cease operations in San Francisco, and did not submit the Uber App technology to DMS for type evaluation. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

more on the meters.. this is good stuff right here....

DMS continued its efforts to convince Uber to comply with the law over the next

year and, in December of 2013, the DMS Director wrote a formal letter to CEO Kalanick requesting a meeting to discuss the steps Uber must take to obtain type evaluation of the Uber App technology. On February 14, 2014, the DMS Director and Chief of Enforcement met with representatives from Uber, including in-house counsel and Uber’s outside counsel. The DMS Director sent a detailed confirming letter to Uber’s outside counsel on February 28, 2014. In the letter, the Director informed Uber that a DMS evaluator was available to test the Uber App technology beginning March 25, 2014, and asked Uber to contact the DMS Enforcement Division to arrange for submission of the Uber App technology to DMS.

130. Uber once again did not submit the Uber App technology to DMS for type evaluation. On April 7, 2014, the DMS Director wrote Uber another letter in which she informed Uber that it must immediately submit the Uber App technology for type evaluation.

131. In response to the April 7, 2014 letter, a member of Uber’s public policy group, Sally Kay, left a voice mail for the DMS Enforcement Branch Chief. When they spoke by telephone on or about April 16, 2014, the Enforcement Branch Chief reiterated to Ms. Kay that Uber must submit the Uber App technology for type evaluation, and offered to provide assistance to Uber with the application forms. Ms. Kay responded that she knew where to find the information.

132. A week later Ms. Kay sent the Enforcement Branch Chief an email saying, “Hi Steve, didn’t want you to think I had forgotten about you! Just got some new staff on board that may be able to help with this. Thanks for understanding! Talk soon, Sally Kay.”

133. Despite Ms. Kay’s assurances, Uber took no further action to comply with the law.

134. In September of 2014 the District Attorneys sent Uber a letter informing Uber that it was violating the law by failing to submit its measuring technology to DMS for approval.

135. On October 10, 2014, the DMS Director sent Uber yet another letter directing Uber to submit the Uber App technology for type evaluation. She gave Uber a deadline of October 17, 2014 to submit the Uber App technology to DMS.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

continuing...

136. Uber ignored the October 17, 2014 deadline, and continued to violate the law each time it uses its non-approved Uber App technology to calculate a customer fare.

137. On May 19, 2015, about six months after the People instituted this enforcement action, Uber finally submitted the Uber App technology to DMS for type evaluation. On August 5, 2015, DMS announced that it had issued Uber a Temporary Use Permit, temporarily authorizing legal use of the Uber App technology for commercial purposes while DMS and Uber continue to work through technical requirements.

138. In an announcement following the issuance of the Temporary Use Permit, Uber admitted that its Uber App technology meets the criteria for regulation by DMS in that it “recommends fares by processing Global Positioning System (GPS) data from smartphones on its servers to measure time and distance.” Similarly, in a blog post following the issuance of the Temporary Use Permit, DMS described the Uber App technology as follows: “The company’s software application . . . provides on-demand transportation services with fares determined using the Global Positioning System to measure time and distance.”


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt regarding illegal pickups at SFO...

<< Uber did not comply with the cease-and-desist letter. Instead, on August 19, 2013, Uber posted a misleading "SFO Update" on its blog in which it told its customers that, "you can request whatever type of car you'd like when your flight lands at SFO - UberX, Uber Black, or Uber SUV." >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
150. Uber's violations are numerous. Within the past four years, Uber's drivers made hundreds of thousands of unauthorized trips to California airports. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
Uber launched its business in California without obtaining approval of the Uber App technology as required by Business and Professions Code section 12500.5, and then over a period of at least four years has repeatedly ignored and continues to ignore demands to come into compliance. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
Uber also began operating at California airports without first obtaining the requisite permits, and has encouraged its drivers to swarm the airports even after receiving multiple cease- and-desist orders from the applicable airport authorities and from the California Public Utilities Commission. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
Uber has been acting pursuant to its well-known corporate policy of setting up shop first and dealing with the regulators later. This policy, which was begun under former Uber CEO Ryan Graves, and which CEO Kalanick proudly dubs "Regulatory Disruption," consists of ignoring laws and regulations that get in the way of the company's rapid expansion into the market, and then aggressively fighting any regulatory enforcement efforts which may follow. One reporter who interviewed Kalanick for a lengthy profile story remarked, "All told, it's not just that Uber has adopted the business school maxim 'Don't ask for permission; ask for forgiveness'-it has instituted a policy of asking for neither." 
>>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

excerpt...

<< 
Uber's unabashed refusal to comply with California regulators and California law is consistent with its "Regulatory Disruption" policy, is willful and persistent within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17206, and has been ongoing for five years. It has also enabled the company to become - within those five years - the world's most valuable pre-IPO 
startup. Uber's $50 billion valuation is greater than 70% of the companies in the Fortune 500 including Kraft Foods Group, Delta Air Lines, General Mills, CBS, Kellogg, Aetna, Campbell Soup Company, ConAgra Foods, and Northrop Grumman Corporation. >>


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)




----------



## Gemgirlla (Oct 16, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> read here


Thanks!


----------



## toi (Sep 8, 2014)

riChElwAy said:


> the link to the 62-page pdf is right in the beginning of the article...


thanks for your time.


----------



## mizzrock (Jan 3, 2015)

No wonder I get rejected because of a major violation on my driving record.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

currently on Uber CEO Travis Kalanick's résumé...

<< In 1998, he launched Scour.com with six buddies at the University of California, Los Angeles. What began as a Web search engine morphed into a popular peer- to-peer file exchange system with 250,000 simultaneous users trading movies and music. Everything was looking up until more than 30 media companies sued Scour for $250 billion for copyright infringement. >>

will Kalanick's future résumé be even more impressive .....


----------



## Luberon (Nov 24, 2014)

"Safe rides fee" marked the beginning of uber's derailment. With a $1 guaranteed deduction off a fare, Uber no longer cared what the minimum fare was. So they pulled the rug off of drivers. 
Uber suddenly had no downside, they could make minimum fare as low as $2 without a loss of revenue. That was when they started cutting rates for drivers to increase demand and drive up their own revenue


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> View attachment 12017


One cup of coffee trying to digest this.
This is a civil judgement.
Who are the plaintiffs?
How many instances of $2500 is Uber now liable for?
This is huge!
Good work, Rich!


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> One cup of coffee trying to digest this.
> This is a civil judgement.
> Who are the plaintiffs?
> How many instances of $2500 is Uber now liable for?
> ...


the plaintiffs are The People of California .. the district attorneys from LA & SF are bringing on the case


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> One cup of coffee trying to digest this.
> This is a civil judgement.
> Who are the plaintiffs?
> How many instances of $2500 is Uber now liable for?
> ...


the $2,500 thing is a mystery.. is it $2,500 per ride? i think it says per violation, but what is their definition of a violation ?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> the $2,500 thing is a mystery.. is it $2,500 per ride? i think it says per violation, but what is their definition of a violation ?


Since the documents referenced illegal meter devices, I'd say a violation is EVERY SINGLE RIDE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHICH MEASURED TIME AND MILEAGE WITHOUT AN APPROVED SEALED METER DEVICE/APP.
Or that's the fantasy of a bitter old man, but I can dream, can't i?


----------



## mjo (Jun 2, 2015)

riChElwAy said:


> the $2,500 thing is a mystery.. is it $2,500 per ride? i think it says per violation, but what is their definition of a violation ?


The way I read it is $2,500 per ride plus $2,500 per rid that entered onto any airport property where they were not permitted. Can you say $billions. Obviously, they will not get that amount but that is one heck of a warning shot.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Would be nice if the State of California could tie up massive amounts of capital based on this judgement.
While I'm on Santa's lap, would be funny if Goldman Sachs and Google pulled a ton of their capital back out of nervousness.


----------

