# Uber May Face Big Fines For Stonewalling



## MHR (Jul 23, 2017)

*on sexual assault data*







Uber's San Francisco headquarters. The ride-hailing company has defied California regulators' demands for more information about sexual assault claims made by its customers and drivers. 
(Eric Risberg / Associated Press)

By SUHAUNA HUSSAINSTAFF WRITER 
SEP. 1, 2020
5 AM

Uber has spent nine months battling California regulators' demands for detailed information on sexual harassment and assault claims made by its customers and drivers. The company's favored legal strategy of asking forgiveness rather than permission will face a fresh test Tuesday, when an administrative law judge will hear testimony to decide whether to recommend hefty penalties for its refusal to cooperate with an inquiry by the state's Public Utilities Commission.

The hearing, scheduled for 1:30 p.m., follows a July 27 ruling upholding the five-person commission's authority to investigate complaints in order to promote rider safety - authority Uber has allegedly flouted in failing to answer its questions and submit required data.

The commission could impose penalties on Uber of up to $100,000 per offense and fines of up to $5,000 per offense. It could choose to suspend or revoke Uber's operating permit - or levy an additional $7,500 fine for each violation. And each fine could be multiplied by each day Uber refused to submit information, according to CPUC spokeswoman Terrie Prosper.

That could add up to tens of millions of dollars, depending on how the judge and the commission define and weigh each alleged violation.

The conflict goes back to December, when Uber disclosed it had received roughly 6,000 reports of sexual assault in the United States over the course of two years. It was the first time the company, which in its early years frequently ignored local regulations and brought drivers onto its platform without robust screening, had revealed such data.

The release of the 84-page report came in response to widespread criticism of Uber's safety practices by legislators and advocates. But rather than pacify them, it invited more questions.

On Dec. 19, Administrative Law Judge Robert M. Mason III ruled that Uber must provide more detailed information to the commission, including the names and job titles of Uber employees, contractors and consultants who drafted the U.S. safety report. The ruling also required descriptions of each sexual misconduct claim that occurred in California from 2017 to 2019, as well as the names and contact information of any witnesses (including victims) and Uber employees who received the reports.

Uber pushed back, filing a motion for reconsideration and questioning the purpose of releasing this data to the commission. The company argued that public disclosure of victims' information could be traumatic for them or put them in danger.

In late January, Mason denied Uber's motion but ruled that certain identifying information could be filed under seal in order to better protect victims and witnesses.

In response, Uber filed a motion asking the judge to stay parts of the December ruling that required the company submit to questioning. Uber also asked for a judge other than Mason to be assigned to oversee the case.

"The CPUC is asking Uber to turn over the names and contact information of victims of sexual assault, without their consent," Uber spokeswoman Jodi Kawada Page said in an emailed statement Monday. "This unprecedented request, whether provided publicly or under seal, violates the privacy rights of survivors who should maintain control of their stories. We were the first in the industry to proactively release safety data and should not be singled out for being transparent and siding with survivors."

Uber received 1,243 reports of sexual assault or harassment within California, accounting for 21% of complaints included in the company's December U.S. safety report, according to the filing.

With the state also cracking down on Uber for resisting compliance with state employment law, Assembly Bill 5, the company will probably try to do everything it can to delay any and all consequences until after the November election, said labor lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has litigated against Uber on behalf of drivers over the years.

Uber and ride-hailing competitor Lyft have spent millions bankrolling ballot initiative Proposition 22, which will serve as a referendum of sorts on how ride-hailing companies should be allowed to operate in California. AB 5, which went into effect Jan. 1, established stricter standards by which workers can be treated as independent contractors rather than employees. Proposition 22 would carve out a new category of work for drivers, essentially granting Uber and other gig economy companies an exemption from AB 5 and a pass on paying for a slew of worker benefits and protections.

"Regulators are coming after Uber from different directions so it's getting harder for [the company] to find any place to hide," Liss-Riordan said.

https://www.latimes.com/business/te...ssault-data-uber-keeps-dodging-their-requests


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Always. A/V. Record. Pax.

AARP


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

why do companies continue to operate in california?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

njn said:


> why do companies continue to operate in california?


huh, might have to do with Calif is many times the biggest market of any other state. Hum?


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

njn said:


> why do companies continue to operate in california?


And why do companies even have the ability to continue to operate in California, when they constantly flout the law?

.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

Well we know it won't do any good to threaten Uber with a shutdown over the stonewalling. CA courts have blinked at Uber's bluff time and time again...


----------



## Kurt Halfyard (Dec 13, 2017)

SHalester said:


> huh, might have to do with Calif is many times the biggest market of any other state. Hum?


CALIFORNIA's ECONOMY alone is the size of GERMANY (the largest economy in the EU).


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

njn said:


> why do companies continue to operate in california?


Many of the companies that have the option of leaving have already left.

https://www.southstarcommunities.com/blog/companies-leave-california-bound-for-texas
https://chiefexecutive.net/business-exodus-california-troubling-sanctuary-policies/
Anyone who says that California isn't devolving into _Blade Runner_ either isn't from here, or lives in a filter bubble.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I'm over allowing Uber to flout the law.

They need to haul in Dara for contempt. 

Start jailing CEOs and they'll toe the line.


----------



## MikhailCA (Dec 8, 2019)

I was sexually assaulted, a few times even successfully. Where’s my money Uber?!


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

The state keeps threatening to pull their operating license but never follow through. London actually followed through and uber finally complied with their new laws.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Many of the companies that have the option of leaving have already left.


for tone, balance and accuracy those moves are HQ related and not 'ceasing' business in Calif. Can you imagine if Toyota ceased business in Calif what it would do to their bottom line? Yiiiikkkkkeeeessssss.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

The problem is there are many false complaints in Uber's record and Uber didn't transfer those complaints to Local authority in first place. Their solution is deactivate drivers and give free rides to Riders who made complaint. 
If Uber gave the record out to local authorities, some drivers will be facing with criminal record that they didn't even commit. Deactivated drivers with false sexual complaints will be suing Uber if Uber gave the record out to Judge and they are recorded in criminal record.
Uber should transfer those complaint to local laws enforcement depart in the first place. That way, all false claims will not be made anymore.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Wildgoose said:


> The problem is there are many false complaints in Uber's record and Uber didn't transfer those complaints to Local authority in first place. Their solution is deactivate drivers and give free rides to Riders who made complaint.
> If Uber gave the record out to local authorities, some drivers will be facing with criminal record that they didn't even commit. Deactivated drivers with false sexual complaints will be suing Uber if Uber gave the record out to Judge and they are recorded in criminal record.
> Uber should transfer those complaint to local laws enforcement depart in the first place. That way, all false claims will not be made anymore.


Agree.

When cops show up to a pax-house needing to take a rape kit from every single person who falsely reports sexual assault in an Uber, that nonsense will stop fast.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Agree.
> 
> When cops show up to a pax-house needing to take a rape kit from every single person who falsely reports sexual assault in an Uber, that nonsense will stop fast.


It is Uber's wrong doing. Uber is not an laws enforcement and they shouldn't just accept the complaints. They should encourage the victims to report to local authorities or they should do it. That is the correct solution. Now Uber is fxxked up.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Wildgoose said:


> It is Uber's wrong doing. Uber is not an laws enforcement and they shouldn't just accept the complaints. They should encourage the victims to report to local authorities or they should do it. That is the correct solution. Now Uber is fxxked up.


"Sir/Ma'am, you reported a rape to Uber. We're here to collect your clothing you were wearing at the time of the incident, swab all your orifices, draw blood and urine, and take photographs of your injuries, so we can make sure to bring that sick, evil, Uber driver to justice."

"But...all I wanted was a free $10 ride home from the bar!"


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

MHR said:


> *on sexual assault data*
> 
> View attachment 504364​Uber's San Francisco headquarters. The ride-hailing company has defied California regulators' demands for more information about sexual assault claims made by its customers and drivers.
> (Eric Risberg / Associated Press)
> ...


The Distant Flames of Crashing Uber Stock Prices. .


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

Cept that so many cases are old and a test would not be valid. But the pax need to be put in an uncomfortable position making a false claim. And then later be charged for filing a false report. Committing Perjury.


UberChiefPIT said:


> Agree.
> 
> When cops show up to a pax-house needing to take a rape kit from every single person who falsely reports sexual assault in an Uber, that nonsense will stop fast.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SHalester said:


> for tone, balance and accuracy those moves are HQ related and not 'ceasing' business in Calif. Can you imagine if Toyota ceased business in Calif what it would do to their bottom line? Yiiiikkkkkeeeessssss.


soon
EVERYONE
Will CEASE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.

What will it do to California's " bottom line"?

( can you grow Lettuce in San Francisco ?)


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> soon
> EVERYONE
> Will CEASE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
> 
> What will it do to California's " bottom line"?


Selling Bush fire smoke.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

SHalester said:


> for tone, balance and accuracy those moves are HQ related and not 'ceasing' business in Calif. Can you imagine if Toyota ceased business in Calif what it would do to their bottom line? Yiiiikkkkkeeeessssss.


Pointing out a multinational corporation instead of the thousands of small business owners that make up the lion's share of employment is the exact opposite of "tone, balance, and accuracy."


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Kurt Halfyard said:


> CALIFORNIA's ECONOMY alone is the size of GERMANY (the largest economy in the EU).


Was . . .
Was.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Pointing out a multinational corporation instead of the thousands of small business owners that make up the lion's share of employment is the exact opposite of "tone, balance, and accuracy."


nope. Read your post and the articles again. Are you saying you 'meant' to say it was HQ moves vs 'ceasing' of business activity in calif?

Would a reasonable person assumed you meant that? Hum.

ahem.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Agree.
> 
> When cops show up to a pax-house needing to take a rape kit from every single person who falsely reports sexual assault in an Uber, that nonsense will stop fast.


How do you know how many complaints are real & are false. Also, that's not at all how the legal system works.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Demon said:


> How do you know how many complaints are real & are false. Also, that's not at all how the legal system works.


Ya it really is (how it works). If someone reports to law enforcement that they have been raped, investigators will insist on having a rape kit done. Because, you know, the legal system is about collecting evidence of an alleged crime to support allegations of a crime, to be able to prosecute a crime.

Otherwise it's nothing but a "He said, she said" allegation.

Why this has to be explained?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Ya it really is (how it works). If someone reports to law enforcement that they have been raped, investigators will insist on having a rape kit done. Because, you know, the legal system is about collecting evidence of an alleged crime to support allegations of a crime, to be able to prosecute a crime.
> 
> Otherwise it's nothing but a "He said, she said" allegation.
> 
> Why this has to be explained?


You need it explained to you because people don't have to press charges or report it to the police.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Demon said:


> You need it explained to you because people don't have to press charges or report it to the police.


Oh ffs. You're so lost in this conversation, you couldn't find the point in a wet paper bag.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberChiefPIT said:


> Oh ffs. You're so lost in this conversation, you couldn't find the point in a wet paper bag.


I apologize for showing you that you were wrong.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Demon said:


> I apologize for showing you that you were wrong.


For crying out loud. The conversation _IS_ about reported crimes, and you're still driving in circles to the left when you need to go right.

The entire reason the state wants the sexual assault information is to potentially prosecute _reported_ alleged crimes, and/or provide assistance to potential sexual assault victims, and in the future to compel Uber to forward all _reported_ incidents of alleged sexual assault crimes to law enforcement for investigation.

If and/or when this happens (Uber forwarding all alleged, reported sexual assault crimes to police for investigation), the police would then be required to contact the alleged sexual assault victims to collect more evidence of the _reported_ crime. It will be at this point that the scammers reporting false crimes for the simple reason of wanting free Uber rides - or whatever reason they do it for - would suddenly think twice about ever doing it again, and word of mouth would travel very quickly to other would be false claimants that they can no longer ruin drivers' livelihoods over this false crap, because it will end up badly for the accusers.

Let us know when you're ready to rejoin the rest of the class in the discussion. No one wants to hear your theories about what will happen to unreported crimes, because we all know what that will be: _They'll remain unreported, and there will be no investigation._


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

SHalester said:


> nope. Read your post and the articles again. Are you saying you 'meant' to say it was HQ moves vs 'ceasing' of business activity in calif?
> 
> Would a reasonable person assumed you meant that? Hum.
> 
> ahem.


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

Here's my exact quote...



Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Many of the companies that have the option of leaving have already left.


My point, either way, is that California has a business unfriendly climate. This causes companies that can leave to leave and take potential tax revenue with them. It also causes companies that stay in California to start new projects outside the state. This includes multinationals with thousands of employees who move headquarters, to the cafe owner with 5 people who decides that the taxes and regulations aren't worth it and moves out-of-state to start a new business elsewhere, they effectively "cease" operations in California.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

UberChiefPIT said:


> For crying out loud. The conversation _IS_ about reported crimes, and you're still driving in circles to the left when you need to go right.
> 
> The entire reason the state wants the sexual assault information is to potentially prosecute _reported_ alleged crimes, and/or provide assistance to potential sexual assault victims, and in the future to compel Uber to forward all _reported_ incidents of alleged sexual assault crimes to law enforcement for investigation.
> 
> ...


And you still need this explained to you. If/when law enforcement contacts the victims the victims don't have to participate in the investigation. You also may have missed the point in the article that Uber is stalling and has been for months to years. What would a rape kit even show after that amount of time?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about at this point.


that's ok. Glad we are clear the articles you posted are really HQ moves and not business 'leaving' calif for other states. Nice to have that cleared up on exactly what is happening.

Pretty sure somebody missed something.


----------



## UberChiefPIT (Apr 13, 2020)

Demon said:


> And you still need this explained to you. If/when law enforcement contacts the victims the victims don't have to participate in the investigation. You also may have missed the point in the article that Uber is stalling and has been for months to years. What would a rape kit even show after that amount of time?


How do you even have a driver's license?


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

SHalester said:


> for tone, balance and accuracy those moves are HQ related and not 'ceasing' business in Calif. Can you imagine if Toyota ceased business in Calif what it would do to their bottom line? Yiiiikkkkkeeeessssss.


Toyota did leave california. Tesla bought their old factory. Now tesla is moving to texas.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

njn said:


> Toyota did leave california.


oh good grief. Toyota did not cease selling cars in Calif. Their sales businesses stayed.

And Telsa making way way way more $$ than it did when Toyota and GM owned the plant. you know, for tone, balance and accuracy.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

The complaints weren't correctly dealt with, then uber covered it up.

That's the crime they are guilty of.

I was falsely accused of being in a car accident this year, with a passenger in the car.

Guess what?

The cab company investigated and determined that the _cab_ wasn't in a car accident and more than likely that passenger never took a ride with _me_.

But they still had to _investigate_ to figure it out. Uber doesn't seem interested in doing any of these investigations and it's blowing up in their face, surprise surprise.

Truth of the matter is that if your in this business you need to actually investigate these types of complaints, because if you don't determine whether or not they happened or not you'll pay out lawsuits needlessly. Had uber been involved i'd have been deactivated and i'd have to prove I got the car fixed, Uber would also probobly end up paying out an injury claim and i could have been deactivated.

Truth of the matter this complaint, had it happened to uber, could easily have cost 1000s if not 10s of thousands.

The reality is that the cab company took one look at the car rolled their eyes and said there was no accident, then they also went and looked up the tracking info on the vehicle and determined that the car hadn't been to the hotel i supposedly picked the party up from. Then the customer vehemently denied the possibility that it could have been any other car or company and refused to work with the company to figure it out.

The end result was the "investigation" resulted in ... MAYBE 20 minutes of investigation. Maybe... to find out the accusation was 100% false.


----------

