Skip to footer

Prosecutor: Uber drivers may not be as carefully vetted as company advertises

The San Francisco district attorney on Wednesday expanded an existing lawsuit against Uber that accuses the company of misleading customers about the extent of background checks conducted on potential drivers.

|
Josh Edelson/AP
San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon speaks during a news conference at the Hall of Justice in San Francisco on Wednesday. The district attorney's office announced that it is expanding a consumer-protection lawsuit aimed at ridesharing company Uber's claims about driver background checks.

Uber, the ride-sharing app that has become indispensable for many on-the-go users, faces an expansion of a consumer-protection lawsuit that may slow the roll of the quickly expanding company.

In December district attorneys from Los Angeles and San Francisco filed the original suit against the company because Uber drivers were working at airports without proper authorization and charging an extra $4 fee to passengers traveling there without any payment to the airport.

The new complaint, announced Wednesday, expands the lawsuit and targets Uber’s claim about having industry-leading background checks for its drivers. San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón called the claim inaccurate because the lack of a fingerprinting process required by California taxi companies.

"I support technological innovation. Innovation, however, does not give companies a license to mislead consumers about issues affecting their safety," Mr. Gascón said in a statement.

The lawsuit claims that Uber failed to uncover the criminal records of 25 California drivers, which included registered sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, a kidnapper, and a convicted murderer.

In a statement Wednesday, Uber countered by saying no background check system is perfect, but their system is just as stringent as taxi driver checks.

"We continue to work on improving safety for riders and drivers before, during and after the trip," Uber said.

The company added that last year it had rejected more than 600 people who had applied to become drivers in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco because they had been convicted of violent crimes or drunk driving.

The district attorneys settled a similar lawsuit with ride-share app Lyft last year. As part of the settlement, Lyft agreed to pay $250,000 and stop advertising that its background checks were among the best in the industry.

Ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft have encountered various political hurdles as they make an aggressive push for international expansion. Uber itself operates programs in 57 countries and has been valued at $40 billion.

Governments are faced with questions about how to regulate the companies amid pressure from taxi and limousine lobbying groups, who have faced loss revenue because of competition with the apps.

Rideshare companies have contended that they should not be subject to the same kind of regulations as other ride services because their drivers are technically independent contractors and not employees of the company.

Earlier this month Uber scored a major victory in the courts when it won the dismissal of a racketeering lawsuit brought by 15 Connecticut taxi and limousine companies seeking to stop Uber from expanding into the state.

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

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.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

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.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Prosecutor: Uber drivers may not be as carefully vetted as company advertises
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0820/Prosecutor-Uber-drivers-may-not-be-as-carefully-vetted-as-company-advertises
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe