Why Uber is preparing to shell out $28.5 million to riders

The polarizing ride-hailing company is looking to settle claims that it misled consumers about safety ahead of another civil case scheduled to go to trial in June.

|
Seth Wenig/AP
Uber drivers, including Bikash Tamang (c.), participate in a rally in front of an Uber office in New York, on Feb. 1. Some Uber drivers in New York City say they are going on strike to protest the company's decision to cut fares in the city by 15 percent.

The ride-hailing company Uber announced on Thursday that it will pay $28.5 million to settle two class action lawsuits.

The embattled company has come under fire for misrepresenting its safety procedures. The lawsuits asserted that the company's description of the $2.30 "Safe Rides Fee" as funding "industry leading" background checks on drivers is misleading because the company's drivers are not subject to fingerprinting like taxi drivers.

As the company prepares to settle the lawsuits, it maintains that Uber does offer safety features, including GPS trip trackers. The company also shares driver photos and license plate information with riders.

Although the federal judge in this case must still approve the deal, Uber is prepared to offer the more than $28 million settlement to approximately 25 million individuals who used the ride-hailing service between 2013 and 2016.

Uber would also have to rename its “Safe Ride Fee” to a “Booking Fee.” The company is careful to remind users that no mode of transportation is totally safe. "Accidents and incidents do happen," Uber said. "That's why it's important to ensure that the language we use to describe safety at Uber is clear and precise.”

Although the settlement must still be approved, Uber is eager to move on. "We are glad to put these cases behind us,” said the company in a statement, “we will continue to invest in new technology and great customer services so that we can help improve safety in the cities we serve."

The consolidated lawsuit is named Matthew Philliben et al. vs. Uber Technologies Inc and Rasier LLC, 14-5615.

This is not the first time Uber’s safety policies have been called into question. District attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles both made similar allegations in a separate 2014 case, which is still pending.

In 2014, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon argued that Uber relied on drivers to provide information about themselves to the company, which then contracted to a third party background check service. It would be very easy for drivers to misrepresent themselves, negating the value of Uber’s background checks, he said. On Thursday, San Francisco Superior Court judge Mary Wiss rejected Uber’s request to have that suit dismissed.

Uber’s rival, Lyft, faced a similar lawsuit in 2014. Lyft paid just $250,000, but was also forced to stop touting the security of its background checks.

Uber is facing deeper legal troubles. The company is scheduled to go to trial in another lawsuit this June. This later lawsuit was filed by Uber drivers, who claim they should be classified as employees and granted benefits.

Taxi drivers around the world have also objected to the Uber app, saying that the company should have to face the same regulations and fees that taxi drivers do, worldwide. Taxi drivers have gone on strike in locations as disparate as Paris, France, and Cambridge, Mass.  

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

[Editor's note: This article has been corrected to reflect the fact that a single 2014 case brought against Uber by San Francisco and Los Angeles is still pending and to clarify in which case Judge Wiss rejected a dismissal request from Uber.]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why Uber is preparing to shell out $28.5 million to riders
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2016/0212/Why-Uber-is-preparing-to-shell-out-28.5-million-to-riders
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe