Uber's Legal Troubles: Breaking The Law?

Uber has been involved in a number of legal controversies since its launch in 2010. The company has been accused of ignoring and breaking laws, as well as engaging in unethical behaviour. For example, Uber has been fined for operating without permission, illegally offering unlicensed taxi services, and failing to protect customers' personal information. In addition, Uber has been criticised for its position on driver employment classification, with some arguing that the company should classify its drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. Uber has also faced legal challenges related to self-driving car technology, abortion laws, and its approach to reporting criminal offences and conducting background checks on drivers.

Uber's toxic culture of rule-breaking

Uber's rule-breaking culture can be attributed to its view of the marketplace and the belief that regulations are outdated and harmful. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has described Uber as a "pirate-ship" and has expressed libertarian ideals, even using the cover image of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" as his Twitter avatar. This attitude has led to an endless series of controversies, including allegations of stealing self-driving car technology from Google, serious sexual harassment claims, and a secret program to foil local law enforcement.

Uber's resistance to classifying its drivers as employees has also been a significant source of controversy. The company has argued that its drivers are independent contractors, which has allowed it to avoid providing benefits and protections afforded to employees. This classification has been challenged in court, with mixed results. Uber has also been accused of replacing human drivers with autonomous vehicles, which could further reduce the rights and protections of its workforce.

In addition to its labour practices, Uber has faced legal challenges related to safety, congestion, and background checks on drivers. The company's licence has been suspended or revoked in several cities, including London and New York, due to concerns over passenger safety and the company's failure to report serious criminal offences. Uber has also been criticised for increasing congestion and taking business away from regular taxi services.

Uber's refusal to classify drivers as employees

Uber's refusal to classify its drivers as employees has been a highly contentious issue, with the company facing legal challenges in various parts of the world. This debate centres on the question of whether Uber drivers are "employees" or "independent contractors".

Uber has consistently designated its drivers as independent contractors, arguing that it is a technology company that merely connects drivers with riders through its app. In contrast, critics contend that Uber exerts significant control over its drivers, including fare prices, performance monitoring, and work conditions. This control, they argue, makes Uber drivers more akin to employees than independent contractors.

The consequences of this classification are significant. If classified as employees, Uber drivers would be entitled to a range of benefits and protections, including paid sick leave, health insurance, and minimum wage protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in the United States. As independent contractors, Uber drivers are responsible for their own vehicle expenses and lack the security of a guaranteed minimum wage.

Uber's stance on this issue has been a source of controversy, with the company facing legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. In California, for example, Uber faced Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB5), which created a stringent test for classifying workers as independent contractors. Despite Uber's efforts to lobby against and legally challenge AB5, the bill passed in 2024, classifying ride-hailing drivers as employees under California law.

Uber's refusal to classify its drivers as employees has been attributed to financial considerations. By classifying drivers as independent contractors, Uber avoids the increased operating expenses associated with providing employee benefits and protections. This classification also allows Uber to maintain the flexibility that its business model relies upon, as drivers can choose when and how much they want to work.

However, this flexibility has also been criticised for providing insufficient security and benefits for drivers, many of whom rely on Uber as a primary source of income. The debate surrounding Uber's classification of its drivers continues to evolve, with ongoing legal and regulatory challenges shaping the future of work in the gig economy.

Uber's response to abortion laws

Uber has a history of ignoring laws and regulations that it deems outdated or harmful. The company has been known to break laws to cement its status as the largest rideshare company in the world and then use its influence to change those laws or pay minor fines while continuing its operations. This has led to several controversies and legal battles, including clashes with regulators in California and Germany. Uber's response to abortion laws in Texas and Oklahoma follows a similar pattern.

In 2021, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi announced that the company would cover legal fees for drivers sued under Texas's restrictive abortion law, which allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids a woman in obtaining an abortion. This law raised concerns that Uber drivers could be sued for simply transporting passengers to abortion clinics. Lyft made a similar pledge, and both companies criticized the law as an attack on women's access to healthcare and their right to choose. Uber and Lyft also faced a similar situation in Oklahoma, where a ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy was passed in 2022. Once again, both companies committed to covering the legal fees of their drivers if they were sued under this law.

In summary, Uber's response to abortion laws in Texas and Oklahoma reflects the company's complex relationship with legal compliance. While Uber has demonstrated a commitment to supporting its drivers and upholding reproductive rights, its history of disregarding regulations suggests that its strategies may be driven by self-preservation and a desire to maintain its market dominance. Uber's response to abortion laws serves as a reminder that the company is willing to navigate legal complexities and take a stand on social issues when they intersect with its business operations.

Uber's fight against taxi cartels

In the United States, Uber has been accused of ignoring state and local laws, entrenching itself in communities, and then using its influence to change the laws it initially broke. For example, in Pennsylvania, Uber was fined $11.4 million in 2016 for operating without permission. The company then lobbied to have the fine reduced and even deputized the mayor of Pittsburgh to support its cause. This cycle of breaking laws, entrenchment, and changing laws has been documented in several US cities and has led to criticism of Uber's aggressive business tactics.

In Mexico, the conflict between Uber and traditional taxi drivers has taken a more violent turn. Taxi unions in Mexico City have held protests and demonstrations, decrying what they see as unfair competition from Uber. Traditional taxi drivers argue that Uber drivers do not have to pay expensive permit fees or undergo the same training and anger management courses as licensed cab drivers. There have been reports of Uber drivers being hunted down and attacked by taxi drivers, with their cars damaged and windows smashed. The situation is further complicated by the involvement of organized crime groups and cartels, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the taxi system.

Uber's response to these challenges has been mixed. In some cases, the company has stood its ground, arguing that current regulations are outdated and harmful to innovation. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has compared the company's struggle to that of the "jitney," a short-lived ride-for-hire service that was regulated out of existence in the early 20th century. Kalanick claims that today's monopolies and regulators are attempting to do the same to Uber. In other cases, Uber has tried to work with governments and regulators to change laws that it deems unfavorable. The company has also emphasized its commitment to safety and customer convenience, highlighting features such as digital receipts, online payment options, and driver ratings as advantages over traditional taxi services.

Uber's self-driving cars

Uber's pursuit of self-driving cars has been marred by legal issues and tragedy. The company's aggressive expansion tactics, which had proven successful in the past, ran into trouble when Uber launched a self-driving service in San Francisco without obtaining the necessary permits. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a cease-and-desist order, stating that Uber's operation was illegal as the cars lacked the required special permit. Uber's head of its Advanced Technology center, Anthony Levandowski, argued that the company didn't need permits as the cars were not yet fully autonomous and required a human driver to monitor them.

Uber's self-driving ambitions suffered a serious setback in 2018 when one of its autonomous vehicles struck and killed a woman, Elaine Herzberg, in Tempe, Arizona. This incident marked the first known fatality caused by an autonomous vehicle. Uber's self-driving Volvo XC90 SUV failed to identify Herzberg as a pedestrian, and the emergency braking system had been disabled to "reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior". A subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) attributed the crash to a combination of factors, including the safety driver's negligence, Uber's technology flaws, and insufficient state policies.

The fatal crash in Arizona prompted significant safety concerns about the autonomous vehicle industry and led to criminal charges against the safety driver, Rafaela Vasquez. Uber was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by local authorities, but the company faced strong criticism and legal battles, including a lawsuit from the victim's family, which was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Uber's efforts to develop self-driving cars also encountered legal troubles with Waymo, Google's self-driving car project. Waymo sued Uber for technology theft, and the case was eventually settled. However, Uber's former star engineer and ex-Googler, Anthony Levandowski, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for trade secret theft.

In December 2020, Uber abandoned its driverless car division, selling it to the startup Aurora for a reported $4 billion. Uber invested $400 million in Aurora and acquired a minority stake, with plans to collaborate on bringing driverless cars to its network in the future. This marked the end of Uber's ambitious dream to replace its fleet of human-powered taxis with robot drivers and highlighted the challenges and complexities of developing and regulating autonomous vehicle technology.

Frequently asked questions