FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Holding Uber Accountable: Litigating over Data Hacks

It sent patrons and users into fits of puzzled anger.  It numbed a good many more who had placed mistaken faith in its operations.  Rapacious, predatory Uber, a ride-hailing company famed for its international ruthlessness, had behaved accordingly.  Last week, the firm revealed that it had received a massive hack in 2016, failing to notify customers and regulators that a breach of security had taken place.

The scale of the hack was far from negligible.  Some 57 million customers were affected, their data obtained and held to ransom.  This was not all.  Officials at Uber, having decided against immediate revelation in favour of a deep freeze approach, went for an eyebrow raising option: paying off the culprits to the tune of $100,000.  A dark deal was done: pretend it had never happened.  The hackers walked away delighted.

Given the nature of such information hacks, the hide and seek option was never going to last.  In a blog post, the company subsequently conceded that, “In October 2016, Uber experienced a data security incident that resulted in a breach of information related to rider and driver accounts.”

The data compromised involved names, email addresses and mobile phone numbers.  Certain “forensic experts” were cited as claiming that no “trip location history, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers or dates of birth were downloaded.”

Incoming chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi apologised with predictable insincerity – when accepting the job in August, he already had knowledge of the hack.  “None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it.”

Having been exposed for being in the breach, Uber’s next step was to claim that the hacking was insipid.  There had been “no evidence of fraud or misuse tied up to the incident.”  Some internal window dressing was in order.

The company has overseen the resignation of three senior managers in the rattled security unit, one stacked with 500 employees.  On the chopping block was Pooja Ashok, chief of staff for the now sacked chief security officer Joe Sullivan; Prithvi Rai, senior security engineer, and Jeff Jones, responsible for physical security.

The security team has not covered itself in glory.  Tasked with the onerous brief of keeping the company accounts secure, it has also been accused of engaging in pilfering programming codes and trade secrets from rivals.  That particular case involves a $1.8bn litigation standoff between Uber and Alphabet’s autonomous vehicle unit Waymo.

This ongoing battle has been illuminating on several levels.  Uber’s approach to regulation – its evasion, that is – has come out for some testing.  Presiding Judge William Alsup was in a far from affable mood to Uber’s general counsel in failing to disclose a 37-page letter suggesting the presence of a “shadow system” designed to avoid paper trails on supposedly sensitive information.

The question to preoccupy the legal fraternity now is whether the hack should have tangible consequences for Uber.  In various states, customers and Uber drivers are looking at legal options over the data breach that may well be grounded in statutory form.  The UK law firm Leigh Day has revealed that it had fielded inquiries from 10 disgruntled customers.

Law partner Sean Humber has certainly had his interest piqued by the possibility of a class action.  “If private, confidential information has been mishandled, that could be a breach of the Data Protection Act, and people could have a claim under the act.”

The line taken by Humber is eminently sensible: that Uber could well have facilitated a misuse of private information or, at the very least, a breach of confidence.  “If people have suffered distress or loss as a result of that data breach, in principle they are entitled to compensation.”

In Los Angeles, the Wilshire Law Firm was also keeping busy on this new frontier of litigation, filing a class action in the federal court claiming that the firm’s drivers and passengers are at risk of fraud and identity theft.

This would be fitting.  Uber is a company hell bent on global reach, and is happy to undercut local regulations, not to mention the taxi market, where possible.  In various locales, the company is meeting forms of resistance.

In September, Transport for London refused the company’s request for a new license, citing its app was not “fit and proper”.  TfL’s reasons also included inadequate reporting procedures for serious criminal offences, the obtaining of medical certificates and the use of the Greyball software.

In other jurisdictions, the company has been banned on grounds spanning unfair competition to sidestepping local tax meters.  But this is a conflict of monumental proportions waged in the courts and jurisdictions of the globe.

Uber, so far, has shown an appetite for donning its armour and going into battle.  Domination does come with its fair share of bruising and flesh wounds.  Importantly, as far as class actions are concerned, the company may well be able to shore up its defences in shifting the onus back to riders and drivers.

According to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in August this year, the rider must agree to waive their entitlement to litigate in signing for the ride-sharing app.  This also comes with an arbitration agreement clause activated on signing, though it does come with an option to opt-out.  That very attention to detail eludes most users of the system, the cost of near instance convenience.

Such deft trickery did not bother Judge Denny Chin, who wrote the judgment assented to by Judges Reena Raggi and Susan Carney.  “While it may be the case that many users will not bother reading the additional terms, that is the choice the user makes.  The user is still on inquiry notice.”  Whether such cases protect the company from cases of gross negligence regarding the handling of user data is a point that still requires a firm answer.  The firm’s vast wings may well be, over time, clipped.

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
Gary Leupp
When Did Russia Become an Adversary?
Uri Avnery
“Not Enough!”
Dave Lindorff
Undermining Trump-Putin Summit Means Promoting War
Manuel E. Yepe
World Trade War Has Begun
Binoy Kampmark
Trump Stomps Britain
Wim Laven
The Best Deals are the Deals that Develop Peace
Kary Love
Can We Learn from Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter? Should We?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Franklin Lamb, Requiescat in Pace
Weekend Edition
July 13, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Brian Cloughley
Lessons That Should Have Been Learned From NATO’s Destruction of Libya
Paul Street
Time to Stop Playing “Simon Says” with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of Formula and Honey
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s Intellectuals Bow to the Queen of Chaos 
Michael Collins
The Affirmative Action Silo
Andrew Levine
Tipping Points
Geoff Dutton
Fair and Balanced Opinion at the New York Times
Ajamu Baraka
Cultural and Ideological Struggle in the US: a Final Comment on Ocasio-Cortez
David Rosen
The New McCarthyism: Is the Electric Chair Next for the Left?
Ken Levy
The McConnell Rule: Nasty, Brutish, and Unconstitutional
George Wuerthner
The Awful Truth About the Hammonds
Robert Fisk
Will Those Killed by NATO 19 Years Ago in Serbia Ever Get Justice?
Robert Hunziker
Three Climatic Monsters with Asteroid Impact
Ramzy Baroud
Europe’s Iron Curtain: The Refugee Crisis is about to Worsen
Nick Pemberton
A Letter For Scarlett JoManDaughter
Marilyn Garson
Netanyahu’s War on Transcendence 
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail