A proposed class action filed in California federal court alleges that Uber’s upfront pricing model charges passengers a higher fare based on a longer route, but requires drivers to take the shortest route, allowing Uber to pocket the difference. The plaintiff alleges that Uber instituted the new “upfront” pricing model sometime between June and September 2016. The upfront pricing model gives prospective riders using the Uber app a fare estimate based on a longer than intended route. Upon conclusion of the ride, the Uber defendants collect the upfront rate from the user based on the longer route and time calculations but do not transmit the full fare collected to the drivers (minus the per transport service fee to which the Uber defendants are entitled).
Class Actions Blog
Posts Tagged ‘Uber’
Respected US District Judge Jed Rakoff refuses to enforce Uber’s arbitration and class action waiver clauses
In a strongly worded decision, Judge Rakoff began his opinion by raising suspicion about whether the Federal Arbitration Act could properly be applied in today’s commercial context:
Application of [the federal policy favoring arbitration] to the Internet is said to inhere in the Federal Arbitration Act, as if the Congress that enacted that Act in 1925 remotely contemplated the vicissitudes of the World Wide Web. Nevertheless, in this brave new world, consumers are routinely forced to waive their constitutional right to a jury and their very access to courts, and to submit instead to arbitration, on the theory that they have voluntarily agreed to do so in response to endless, turgid, often impenetrable sets of terms and conditions, to which, by pressing a button, they have indicated their agreement.
Uber has agreed to pay up to $100 million to settle a class-action lawsuit which resolves a major challenge to its business model by allowing the ride-hailing service to keep its California and Massachusetts drivers as independent contractors. The lawsuit had claimed that Uber drivers are employees and thus entitled to reimbursement of expenses. Read more…
Uber Black drivers filed a class action lawsuit against Uber following a protest in Southwest Philadelphia. The lawsuit, filed by Ali Razak of the Philadelphia Limo Association, an organization of over 500 Uber Black drivers, accuses Uber of failing to pay them compensation according to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit argues Uber has misclassified the Uber Black drivers as independent contractors rather than actual employees in order to avoid paying them wages, unemployment taxes, social security, workers’ compensation premiums, disability taxes and other mandatory benefits. Read more…
Lyft, Inc. has agreed to pay $12.25 million and give additional job security to a proposed class of current and former California drivers suing the ride-hailing service in California federal court. However, the company will not classify the drivers as employees. Instead, Lyft will agree that it does not have the right to terminate drivers at will. With the at-will termination provision gone, drivers will now be able to turn down rides without fear of their account being deactivated. Read more…
The Uber class action in which drivers allege ride-sharing company misclassified them as independent contractors will go to trial in June 2016. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen, who certified the 2013 suit as a class action in September, set a trial date of June 20, 2016, and reserved five weeks for the trial. However, he noted that a number of “fundamental questions” remain, including those that took up the bulk of a hearing over whether some of Uber’s agreements — and the arbitration clauses they contain — are enforceable.
The case is O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al., case number 3:13-cv-03826, in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California