Uber Offers To Pay Out $28.5 Million, Say Things Differently

Uber has agreed to pay $28.5 million to riders to settle two class-action suits challenging its safety claims and, as part of the agreement, will be changing the language it uses in its marketing so that it is “clear and precise.”

The plaintiffs in the two cases — Philliben v. Uber Technologiesand Mena v. Uber Technologies — allege Uber “misled them by advertising that Uber rides are ‘safer than a taxi’ and that its background checks were ‘industry leading,’” reports Tracey Lien for the Los Angeles Times. 

The court filings said Uber made these claims in its marketing materials, despite its background check process not including fingerprints or requiring applicants to appear in person. In comparison, taxi regulators use fingerprint technology in their background checks,” Lien continues.

advertisement

advertisement

The settlement filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California needs to be approved by a judge before the eligible riders are notified by email and given the choice to be paid either by credit card or with a credit on their rider account.

“Uber has long-touted its safety record as compared to other for-hire vehicle services like taxis and black cars. But under this agreement, Uber will now have to avoid using certain language when marketing itself, such as ‘safest ride on the road’ and ‘gold standard in safety,’” points out Andrew J. Hawkins for The Verge. “It will also change the name of the tax it charges each rider, from ‘safe ride fee’ to ‘booking fee.’”

An Uber Newsroom blog post commenting on the agreement maintains “technology enables us to focus on safety for riders and drivers … in ways that were simply not possible before smartphones. For example, by sharing driver information with riders — their license plate and photo ID — before they get into the car; by tracking trips using GPS from beginning to end; and by enabling riders to share their ETA or route with family and friends.”

In addition, The New York Times’ Mike Isaac reports, “in the past, Uber has said that it will invest more in researching improved safety technologies like biometric identification and voice verification.”

But, as Uber allows in its blog post, “accidents and incidents do happen.”

The class in the two settlements includes all passengers who took an Uber trip in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 2013 and Jan. 31, 2016, but don’t expect a free ride with the settlement bucks.

“Payouts will be downright paltry,” writes Chris Velazco for Engadget. “That's because, when combined, the scope of the two cases is pretty huge: between [the two cases], the potential payout will be divvied up among about 25 million people, meaning affected customers probably won't even get a full dollar after all the lawyers get their slice.”

Other lawyers in other locales — as well as prosecutors, legislatures and police — still have their eyes on Uber and its brethren.

“Similar lawsuits filed by the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles are still pending,” the Associated Press points out, even as “government entities around the globe are grappling with how to regulate and monitor ride-hailing companies.” 

Lionel A. Leach, the president of CWA, Local 1039, the parent organization of the United Transportation Alliance of New Jersey, complains in a guest column for the Jersey Journal that drivers for Uber, Lyft and other app-based ride services don’t have to go through the same background screening — including fingerprinting — that taxi and limousine drivers do. A bill similar to one in New York City that requires fingerprinting has been introduced in the state legislature but Uber is opposing it.

Leach urges consumers to reach out to their legislators to urge them to support the bill. He writes that Uber initially “threatened lawsuits” and “funded high-priced public relations campaigns” and  “stomped their feet and threatened to leave” but caved when “when NYC officials stood their ground and put passenger safety ahead of company profits.”

The big winners here will be the lawyers, suggests The Verge’s Hawkins. “Typically, attorneys in class-action cases such as these request the judge approve a certain percentage of the final settlement as their legal fee, which can be as high as 25%. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in these two cases … did not immediately return requests for comment.”

In the rungs of despised professions, litigators consistently rank lower than drivers — and just about everybody else. Indeed, the two comments to Brian Fung’s coverage of the settlement in the Washington Post say: “I'd tell my kids to become class action lawyers, but I'm more concerned about their immortal souls than their bank accounts” and “what a dumb lawsuit ... bunch of attorneys entrepreneurs pillaging and plundering...”. 

Sounds like an opportunity for all you marcomm professionals out there to pitch “high-priced public relations campaigns.”

Next story loading loading..