# Uber faces new lawsuit vs other 48 states



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/02/uber-is-facing-a-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit/

Makes sense, since no reason why Cali and Mass should be the only Uberes to collect some pocket change


----------



## secretadmirer (Jul 19, 2015)

I think Travis enjoys all this controversy.


----------



## Bobby Loblaw (Aug 16, 2015)

*I think that it is This case and all the others current and to come (and there will be many) is what keeps Uber from going to an IPO. These cases represent what is known about Uber, which leads me to conclude that there is even More in the closet/under the covers.

Dollars to donuts, Google has for some time been acquiring Uber shares from some of the early investors with their end game to gain control of Uber; much like Chris Sacca (Lowercase) did when, through back room deals, acquired enough shares to become the largest outside investor in Twitter. Angel and early investors exit strategy is usually through an IPO, but in this case because of all of the negative press and mounting legal cases, they wiil entertain other methods to exit their investment. Google may be their only way out.
Google has already many of the key components in place or development. Strategically this will be hailed as the most significant move by Google since its' inception.

Travis Colonic can not possibly go with an IPO because it represents the thing he fears most and that is full DISCLOSURE, something that all public companies face. Better that he take a massive payout from Google when the time comes than to suffer the public embarassment and possible legal issues Disclosure would bring.

Looking at what we do know about Uber and now compare that to what we will know, should they go public. Has every dirty trick, backroom dealing, questionable payoffs, borderline acquisitions, illegal activities, etc been made public. I think not.*


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/02/uber-is-facing-a-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit/
> 
> Makes sense, since no reason why Cali and Mass should be the only Uberes to collect some pocket change


48 X 100 M = 4800 M = No more uber


----------



## volksie (Apr 8, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/02/uber-is-facing-a-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit/
> 
> Makes sense, since no reason why Cali and Mass should be the only Uberes to collect some pocket change


I don't think the Ca settlement will be approved! The lawyers haggled & came up with a bad deal for drivers. I could be wrong but I don't think this case is over.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Bobby Loblaw said:


> Google has for some time been acquiring Uber shares from some of the early investors with their end game to gain control of Uber


Do you have any evidence that Google Ventures, or Google itself, is buying Uber stock from early shareholders?

From what I've read, early shareholders can sell their stock back to Uber only:

*Uber plays hardball with early shareholders*

*How Uber cleverly controls its stock so it won't have to go public anytime soon - unlike Facebook, Twitter, and Google*


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Bobby Loblaw said:


> *Travis Colonic*


.............one of the better derogatory butcherings of someone's name that I have read or heard, lately.......................


----------



## Bobby Loblaw (Aug 16, 2015)

*Chi; I got nothing except a theory and little speculation. Sounded good when i was writing it.

Jist doin sum noodlin*


----------



## Bobby Loblaw (Aug 16, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .............one of the better derogatory butcherings of someone's name that I have read or heard, lately.......................


*I may have used that "butchering" on this site maybe 20 times and you sir are the first to comment. BRAVO! Thank you for noticing. 
It may be due to the average age being somewhat younger on this site and have yet to experience the joys of such a procedure.*


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

Micmac said:


> 48 X 100 M = 4800 M = No more uber


Your math is wrong.

The 100M was for CA and MA......50M per state.

So 48 x 50M = 2400M = still no more Uber, LOL.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

GooberX said:


> Your math is wrong.
> The 100M was for CA and MA......50M per state.
> So 48 x 50M = 2400M = still no more Uber, LOL.


Your math is wrong - 
it isn't "$50mil per state". It's based on the number of drivers.
Read the settlement agreement.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Bobby Loblaw said:


> *I may have used that "butchering" on this site maybe 20 times and you sir are the first to comment. BRAVO! Thank you for noticing.
> It may be due to the average age being somewhat younger on this site and have yet to experience the joys of such a procedure.*


Agggggg


----------



## Newwber (Dec 11, 2015)

Travis Colonic is amusing...... thus it would follow we have all endured our own version of a *KALANOSCOPY!*


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .............one of the better derogatory butcherings of someone's name that I have read or heard, lately.......................


Maybe it was a misspelling. Maybe he meant Travis' cologne.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Your math is wrong -
> it isn't "$50mil per state". It's based on the number of drivers.
> Read the settlement agreement.


It's 100 million for California and Massachusetts drivers.

Now go do math.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

GooberX said:


> It's 100 million for California and Massachusetts drivers.
> 
> Now go do math.


The post I responded to said it was 50 million per state. That is incorrect. The funds are distributed by the number of drivers in each state. California has many more drivers than Massachusetts. That's all I was saying.


----------



## GooberX (May 13, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> The post I responded to said it was 50 million per state. That is incorrect. The funds are distributed by the number of drivers in each state. California has many more drivers than Massachusetts. That's all I was saying.


48 X 100 M = 4800 M = No more uber

--------
Your math is wrong.

The 100M was for CA and MA......50M per state.

So 48 x 50M = 2400M = still no more Uber, LOL.
--------

You said 48 states x 100.................it's 48 x 50....................I stand by my statement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

GooberX said:


> You said 48 states x 100


I said? Nope, not me.
But you still don't seem to understand that the award amounts (if any) are not by 'state', but by # of drivers within a state. CA has more drivers than any other state. MA has a bunch. North and South Dakota don't have a dozen drivers between them... neither of those will get $50mil.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

johwob said:


> UberX Drivers Lost Commissions as a Result of the Safe Rides Fee Charged to Them on Minimum Fares
> 
> UberX drivers have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Uber-despite written promises not to do so-took the "Safe Rides Fee" out of the fares that drivers earned on their Minimum Fare rides.
> 
> Uber instituted a Safe Rides Fee in April 2014 ... The class action complaint alleges that Uber took the Safe Rides Fee out of the fares that drivers charged riders on Minimum Fare rides. Uber did this despite the clear terms of Uber's written contracts, and its contrary email promises to drivers.


So this complaint applies only to those who drove Uber between April 2014 and had signed up prior to Nov 2014 (when the new driver agreements came out, detailing and including the SRF) ??


----------



## johwob (May 12, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> So this complaint applies only to those who drove Uber between April 2014 and had signed up prior to Nov 2014 (when the new driver agreements came out, detailing and including the SRF) ??


If you drove between April 2014 to October 31, 2015 then you are a member of the class.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

johwob said:


> If you drove between April 2014 to October 31, 2015 then you are a member of the class.


I thought the Nov 2014 Driver Agreement defined the 'FARE' basis on which drivers would be paid - and you had to agree to that in order to drive once it was issued (Nov 10, 2014)

1.8 "Fare" has the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.
4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment.
You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services ("Fare"), where such *Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus mileage and/or time amounts*, as detailed for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation").​
There is no mention of the SRF being a part of the 'FARE' in that agreement.
That agreement also says drivers agree that Uber can change anything they want at any time by updating the agreement and posting in the Uber drivers 'portal'.

Not sure I see where the class action has merit for drivers after Nov 2014.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> There is no mention of the SRF being a part of the 'FARE' in that agreement.


I don't believe that there is any mention of SRF in any agreement.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> I don't believe that there is any mention of SRF in any agreement.


Yeah - I was just looking at that. The FARE basis (amount which Uber bases its 'user fee') is described very explicitly but there's no mention of the SRF... and the contract says they can change the fares at will - and that continued use of the app to accept rides constitutes drivers agreeing to any new fare basis. Again, I don't understand the merit of the case.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Again, I don't understand the merit of the case.


I think the basis of this Safe Rides Fee Lawsuit is that Uber took SRF from the Minimum Fare without clarifying till late last year that Minimum Fare includes SRF/Booking Fee.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> I think the basis of this Safe Rides Fee Lawsuit is that Uber took SRF from the Minimum Fare without clarifying till late last year that Minimum Fare includes SRF/Booking Fee.


Ah... yes - that makes sense. When they did that, I wrote and asked when they had 'lowered' the min fare and why they did it without notifying me... I got a canned response that didn't address my question.


----------



## Old Rocker (Aug 20, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> Do you have any evidence that Google Ventures, or Google itself, is buying Uber stock from early shareholders?
> 
> From what I've read, early shareholders can sell their stock back to Uber only:
> 
> ...


From what I've read, since Uber is a private company, you are correct that Uber private shareholders can only sell to shares to other shareholders, and the sales must be approved by Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

johwob said:


> ch1cabby is right in his analysis and it explains very clearly what cabby stated.


Yes, thanks... as I mentioned, I wrote to Uber about their theft...
and I even started a thread about it November 15, 2015...
that no one seemed to care much about. <shrug>

Dear Uber -

On Oct 2, 2015, Uber sent me an email indicating an increase to the SRF from $1.00 to $1.70 -
noting specifically that the increase in the SRF would *not* affect the amount I "take home per trip".

At that time the Minimum Fare was $5.70 ($4.00 t + $1.70 SRF),
which at the 20% Uber Fee rate resulted in minimum driver earnings of $3.20.

My trip earnings reports and weekly earnings reports reflect this to be the case.

As of yesterday, November 14, 2015 the Uber website for Cleveland indicates that
the UberX Fare Minimum Fare is $4.70- *inclusive* of the SRF.

*That is a $1 drop in the minimum fare, resulting in minimum earnings of $2.40*
for UberX for drivers at the 20% Uber fee level - *and $2.25 *for new drivers at
the 25% Uber fee level.

*On what date did Uber lower the minimum fares for Uber X, UberXL and UberSELECT
in Cleveland by $1 per ride?*

*Why was I as an Uber Partner not informed of this change in minimum fare?
*
---------------------------------------

Nov 23, 14:57

Michael,

Happy to clarify this for you. The SRF has increased by $.70 ($1.70-$1) and therefore we increased the minimum fare accordingly ($4+.70). There has been no change in driver earnings for minimum fare trips. I took a look back at your payment statements to confirm.

Thank you and have a good day,

*Rachel*
help.uber.com

----------------------------------------
​


----------

