Uber To Pay Up To $25 Million For Misleading Advertising In California (bbc.co.uk)

Bruce66423 writes: Uber has agreed to a settlement of $10 million for misleading advertising about the quality of its background checks for drivers. One particular concern was its absence of fingerprint-based checking.Uber has agreed to no longer use such terms as "safest drive on the road" in its advertising. Prosecutors said Uber failed to prevent 25 people with criminal records from becoming drivers, including several sex offenders and a convicted murderer. Another language change included renaming its "safe ride fee" as a "booking fee." Uber has agreed to make the $10 million payment within 60 days to settle the agreement, otherwise they will be forced to pay an additional $15 million in two years.

Comments

But ... but ...

[Hognoxious]

But it's on the internet and we've got an app!

Failed to prevent?

[thegarbz]

What in the actual hell? Uber has "failed to prevent 25 people with criminal records from becoming drivers"? So frigging what?

Either the people are normal every day people who should have no issue finding work, or they are dangerous criminals and shouldn't have been released. Why the heck should Uber be preventing free people from working?

Re:Failed to prevent?

[drinkypoo]

Oh my god, not a whole 25 of them!!!?1?! That's terrible!They will need hundreds more in order to reach parity with normal taxi services. It's safe to assume that California has just as many drivers for actual taxi services with a record as Uber does, even per capita, and maybe more. You are already not safe in a taxi in California, don't imagine that you are. (Not that it's safe to be a taxi driver, either...)

The real story here is that our country is a pressure cooker of inequity, just like most of the rest of the world, and when you apply energy to a system you add motion. But government doesn't want to fix society, so long as they can look busy. They don't want to work themselves out of a job.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[PopeRatzo]

you are better off admitting your past mistakes than trying to hide them.

You're not married, are you?

Re:Failed to prevent?

[gstoddart]

Why the heck should Uber be preventing free people from working?

Right, that way if some crazy guy goes on a shooting rampage or starts raping female passengers they can just say "why, we just let free people work and if passengers want safety and assurance we're not sending out psychopaths they're free to conduct their own background checks".

Sorry, but people do kind of expect when they request a cab -- oh, sorry, an illegal car-for-hire pretending it's an unregulated ride sharing service to which laws don't apply -- that a fucking serial killer isn't being sent to them.

See, one of the many fucking laws Uber claims don't apply to it are things like criminal background checks to protect the public safety. Oh, and commercial licenses, proper insurance, vehicle inspections, and shit like that.

Uber's entire business model is basically saying "you know all those laws places have enacted to ensure passenger safety and the life, well, none of them apply to us".

In this case, Uber straight up lied about the safety assurances they could give about drivers, and mislead passengers into thinking they conducted their background checks to a higher standard than other companies, and actually used terms like "safe" in their marketing.

So, yeah, when you lie to the public about how safe you are, and fail to do the level of background checks you suggest you do, people find out about it, and your dumb ass gets fined.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[tsqr]

What in the actual hell? Uber has "failed to prevent 25 people with criminal records from becoming drivers"? So frigging what?

Uber wasn't prosecuted for hiring people with criminal records. They were prosecuted for deceptive advertising, after claiming that their driver vetting process was superior to the processes used by taxi companies (from TFA: "Unlike traditional cab companies, Uber does not require a fingerprint check that could uncover prior convictions."), and using advertising phrases like "safest drive on the road" (they aren't).

Either the people are normal every day people who should have no issue finding work, or they are dangerous criminals and shouldn't have been released.

Really, those are the alternatives? In the real world it seems that dangerous criminals are routinely released from prison. Some get early release due to overcrowding conditions, a few game the parole system, and many somehow remain dangerous despite having served their full sentences (perhaps you've stumbled across the term "repeat offender"). "Paying your debt to society" by serving a prison term for aggravated assault doesn't magically transform a "dangerous criminal" into a "normal everyday person".

Re:Failed to prevent?

[drinkypoo]

See, one of the many fucking laws Uber claims don't apply to it are things like criminal background checks to protect the public safety.

You are an idiot shooting off his mouth ignorantly at best, or perhaps a liar, as Uber does conduct background checks. No formal evidence has been provided that they are less effective than the background checks used by authorized taxi companies, and there is plenty of informal evidence that they are not.

proper insurance

Uber provides additional insurance while transporting a fare, so you're lying again, liar. They don't provide insurance while driving to pick one up, and some insurance companies have seized upon this chance to attack Uber to punish them for not signing up for more insurance, possibly from them. But there is no rational basis for denying insurance coverage to people in that condition. You are already assessed insurance fees based on your mileage, so the additional driving is already accounted for by your insurance.

vehicle inspections

This is the one place where Uber might be behind traditional taxi services, but given all the shit cabs I've been in that clearly needed suspension work, I doubt it. I very, very much doubt it. People will tend to keep up their personal vehicles BETTER than taxis, because they don't want to drive around in some busted-ass shitbox. If the quality of your vehicle slips too far, you will be reported and Uber won't let you take fares any more. About half the taxis I have been in seemed about to fall off the fucking road, especially in San Francisco which you will note is actually in California, where this lawsuit is taking place.

Uber's entire business model is basically saying "you know all those laws places have enacted to ensure passenger safety and the life, well, none of them apply to us".

Actually, it's saying that they are a sad fucking joke, and guess what? It's true!

Now, spit out some more lies in the form of a rebuttal.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[clickety6]

They aren't being prevented from working, Uber can employ all the ex-cons they want. What they can't do is n advertise themselves as the safest drivers without even being aware of who it is they are employing.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[Joe_Dragon]

normal taxi services have there fees set the by the local gov and they don't have surge pricing. Also they take tips in cash with there boss giving them a hard time over it.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[bluefoxlucid]

It's better than that. 25 people in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The CITY of Houston has hundreds of them, despite requiring a clean criminal record.

Let me say that again: One city, hundreds of rapists and drug dealers, 8% of cab drivers. One state, 160,000 Uber drivers, 25 convicted felons, 0.016% of Uber drivers.

It sounds like Uber is outdoing some municipalities.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[bluefoxlucid]

A much higher percentage of State taxi drivers than Uber drivers have drunk driving convictions in the past 10 years of their criminal record. On average, the layperson would call that "Safest drivers on the road".

Re:Failed to prevent?

[tsqr]

A much higher percentage of State taxi drivers than Uber drivers have drunk driving convictions in the past 10 years of their criminal record. On average, the layperson would call that "Safest drivers on the road".

I'm sure you must have an authoritative source for that claim, and I'd really like to see it, because all I could find was this article saying that those sort of statistics aren't recorded. A background check on an individual will report convictions, searching on convictions won't tell you whether the offender was a driver for either a taxi service or Uber. Note that I'm not accusing you of making this stuff up, and I don't think it's your job to do my research; I'd just like to see the citation if you have it.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[tlambert]

What crook will openly admit his major crimes if hiding them guarantees a job? The checks therefore have to performed by the employer by contacting the authorities. But Uber cares more about saving money than about the safety about its customers.

And the authorities care more about revenue collection than about actually ensuring the safety of the public, which is why background checks cost companies money to have performed.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[fluffernutter]

Are you really asking that? Do you feel it is against the rights of a known pedophile to work at a daycare?

Re:Failed to prevent?

[thegarbz]

Uber wasn't prosecuted for hiring people with criminal records. They were prosecuted for deceptive advertising, after claiming that their driver vetting process was superior to the processes used by taxi companies (from TFA: "Unlike traditional cab companies, Uber does not require a fingerprint check that could uncover prior convictions."), and using advertising phrases like "safest drive on the road" (they aren't).

Good god, everything is unsafe because Uber isn't checking if free people have had prior criminal convictions! Sorry that doesn't follow, unless you're suggesting that PRIOR (adjective: existing or coming before in time, order, or importance.) criminals are so unsafe that they shouldn't be allowed to work and interact with people.

Really, those are the alternatives? In the real world it seems that dangerous criminals are routinely released from prison.

Yes those are the ONLY two alternatives in a modern functioning society. If you claim any third alternative then you're in a scenario where you either condone automatic life sentences (after all the people are too dangerous to be members of society by your standards), or you live in a world where a prior conviction gets you effectively removed from society. Fix you goddamn prison system if you have a problem with it, and stop releasing rehabilitated people and then forcing them back towards a life of crime by denying them the basic necessities such as the ability to earn a living.

Re:Failed to prevent?

[thegarbz]

Sure they can. Safety is a massive word incorporating all sorts of things, and (yes this will sound racist) Uber drivers in my city seem to be far better at basic safe driving than the Indians and Pakistanis who make up 99% of the taxi workforce. Mind you it's not their fault, if you've been to India you would see why they drive the way they do.

By the way are you implying that the prison system is failing massively enough to let known dangerous people back on the streets? Should Uber be the new police force to keep you safe?

Re:Failed to prevent?

[Lotharus]

I don't think it's your job to do my research

Don't go so easy on him. It is his job to substantiate the claims he makes with cited evidence.

Just as an aside

[H3lldr0p]

Why are there laws and regulations preventing certain people form seeking employment based on past convictions?

For the most part, prosecutors can't even bring that stuff up as part of a argument in a court.

I get that we want to feel safe, but two things occur to me. First is that these people have "paid" for their crime. How is this not continuing a sentence after it's supposed to be over? Second, how do we expect people to make a better life after prison if we make it even harder for them to get gainful employment?

Re:Just as an aside

[drinkypoo]

I get that we want to feel safe, but two things occur to me. First is that these people have "paid" for their crime. How is this not continuing a sentence after it's supposed to be over?

People having "paid" for their crime is an argument against punishing them twice, not against exercising common sense. If someone has a criminal conviction for assault and battery, it may be unwise to hire them to drive a taxi.

Second, how do we expect people to make a better life after prison if we make it even harder for them to get gainful employment?

It is reasonable for not all avenues of employment to be open to all people. Remember, we're balancing their right to exist against society's right to be safe from them.

Re:Just as an aside

[EmagGeek]

My thoughts exactly. Punishment for a crime is supposed to be objective, measurable, and above all, finite. We go out of our way to ruin people's lives forever over seemingly trivial transgressions like speeding or jaywalking or smoking pot.

Re:Just as an aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Our legal system says outright that past criminal activity is not reasonable suspicion that further criminal activity is afoot. That is why prior convictions and their circumstances are inadmissible in a criminal trial.

In an objective moral system, it is similarly inappropriate to use prior criminal convictions as a basis upon which to propose that further criminal activity is imminent or even more likely than baseline.

Re:Just as an aside

[drinkypoo]

Our legal system says outright that past criminal activity is not reasonable suspicion that further criminal activity is afoot.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

That is why prior convictions and their circumstances are inadmissible in a criminal trial.

They affect whether you're even likely to appear in court. They will bias the proceedings even if not admissible. And by the way, you're also wrong. Nice try, though.

Re:Just as an aside

[roman_mir]

My thoughts exactly. Punishment for a crime is supposed to be objective, measurable, and above all, finite. We go out of our way to ruin people's lives forever over seemingly trivial transgressions like speeding or jaywalking or smoking pot.

- it's not supposed to be a 'punishment for crime', it's supposed to be a way to either rehabilitate a person or at least keep the society safe from a dangerous offender. USA system fails hard at both of these.

Re: Just as an aside

[Coisiche]

Well exactly, they need to be sure of employment prospects in case they stop being politicians.

Re:Just as an aside

[The-Ixian]

People having "paid" for their crime is an argument against punishing them twice, not against exercising common sense. If someone has a criminal conviction for assault and battery, it may be unwise to hire them to drive a taxi.

What about the people who are abusers or rapists or even murderers who haven't been caught? How do we screen against them?

If a person makes a mistake, gets caught and then serves their sentence, they should be treated the same as anyone else.

Re:Just as an aside

[drinkypoo]

What about the people who are abusers or rapists or even murderers who haven't been caught? How do we screen against them?

You are arguing that we should throw up our hands and give up because we don't have a perfect solution. That is fucking stupid, and you are making slashdot a stupider place for suggesting it.

If a person makes a mistake, gets caught and then serves their sentence, they should be treated the same as anyone else.

So just to be clear, if someone is a multiple rapist and gets thrown into a rape factory for twenty years, you'd be comfortable with a potential victim riding drunk (obviously a common condition in a taxi) in their taxi immediately thereafter? You've got some serious fucking screws loose.

Let's be clear, the whole "debt to society" thing is a bunch of shit ginned up to con simpletons like you. We put people in prison to get them out of our hair. Since it's not about rehabilitation (on average, anyway) prison doesn't reduce crime, it increases it. Prisoners go in, hardened convicts come out. The idea that you're safer with someone who has served their sentence is a dumb one at best. Maybe that's true in some of these Nordic countries where prison is on an island and you have a job and all that jazz, but not here, in the country that we are actually talking about.

Re:Just as an aside

[Jaime2]

... but it's pretty good at making sure that ex-cons have few other viable sources of income than a continuing life of crime.

Re:Just as an aside

[houghi]

I agree. However I also agree that there should be some sort of differnces. I could understand not having a convicted childmolester that raped several little children run a kindergarden. However he should be fine working as a taxi driver (whatever the company, including uber).

A convicted banker should perhaps not work in a bank, but could easily wor at McD. This depending obviously on the crime.

Where I work (Belgium) we have refused people with some sort of history and accepted others, depending on the crime they did qnd when it happend. If last year or 15 years ago makes a HUGE difference.

Re:Just as an aside

[Alumoi]

You know, you just described the talion law, aka an eye for an eye.

Re:Just as an aside

[tlambert]

Why are there laws and regulations preventing certain people form seeking employment based on past convictions?

Certain types of criminal behaviour are motivated by incurable mental illnesses.

For example, pedophiliac child molestation or other criminal behaviour based on sexual gratification.

These people are generally safe to release into society if they do not have unsupervised contact with their preferred targets; on the other hand, they will never be cured until we figure out exactly what part of their brain is broken, drill a hole in their head, and *cut it out of them surgically*.

Since that's unlikely to happen any time soon, and they will remain mentally ill -- and we have established at the supreme court level that people have a right to refuse treatment for mental illness, even if we discovered a cure tomorrow, and those people will remain mentally ill despite the availability of a cure -- we restrict their ability to interact with society in ways which would encourage recidivism, rather than simply throwing away the key or imposing the death penalty.

This is the same reason you are unlikely to hire someone with a gambling addiction and a prior embezzlement conviction to be a bank teller: HIPAA protects them from disclosure of their underlying untreated/untreatable medical problem, but there is no such protection from disclosure of an historical criminal record from them acting out antisocially based on that problem.

Note: There is some argument in the literature that all criminal behaviour is a form of illness; I personally don't believe that: I believe that there are some people who are simply assholes; however, since neither is generally fixable, our options are permanent incarceration, or release + restrictions on their right of free association in situations likely to result in recidivism.

You don't hire an alcoholic to tend bar, you don't hire a gambling addict to work in a casino, you don't hire a rapist to work in a women's shelter, you don't hire Jeffrey Dahmer to work in a fast food restaurant next to a mortuary.

Sometimes: common sense *is* a factor.

Re: Just as an aside

[drinkypoo]

Tell me again which employment avenues would be appropriate for convicted felons in your model?

First, it depends on the felony. Second, if they have a history of violence, it's not appropriate to have them work with the public unsupervised. That leaves a lot of ground.

Re:Just as an aside

[EmagGeek]

Well, it is supposed to be both. There is both an accountability component and a rehabilitative component. The US simply ignores the latter, because crime is quite profitable for state actors and those with whom they conspire in the private sector. Rehabilitation conflicts with the interest of those who benefit from the flow of money, so naturally they just leave that part out.

It is getting even worse now that the US is moving towards a model of prison-for-profit, policing-for-profit, and other models that make funding dependent upon increasing crime.

Taxi companies with modpoints?

[drinkypoo]

When you get modded "flamebait" for pointing out that normal taxi services regularly hire felons, and that taxi drivers often assault their passengers sexually or otherwise, it sure looks wacky. If you don't personally know multiple women who have been sexually assaulted by taxi drivers, maybe you should fuck right off, right now. I do. The idea that taxi drivers are safer than the general population is fucking stupid, and only fucking stupid people would espouse it. The official background checks are a pathetic joke.

If you don't want people to attack people, you have to improve society. You can't just improve taxi drivers. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[PopeRatzo]

and that taxi drivers often assault their passengers

Taxi drivers are a lot more likely to be assaulted by their passengers than the other way around.

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[drinkypoo]

Taxi drivers are a lot more likely to be assaulted by their passengers than the other way around.

Sure, it's not safe to be a taxi driver. But it's also not safe to be a taxi passenger. In short, safety is an illusion. It seems real until you discover that you are the statistic. It's always so, but it's especially so when you have significant inequity, and people fail to have their needs met.

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Maybe Taxi Drivers need an App which enables them to instantly do a criminal background check on their passengers? If a passenger pops up with a record for armed robbery on a Taxi Driver . . . you might want to think about skipping the fare . . .

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[Solandri]

It's the same problem which plagues nuclear power and many environmental standards. People incorrectly compare to a baseline of zero risk. There is no such thing as zero risk. Everyday objects you encounter give off radiation. Sunlight is hazardous and can cause cancer. But because people default to comparing to a zero baseline, they incorrectly decide that any radiation is bad. Or any raised cancer risk due to exposure to a chemical is unacceptable. Or any felon working as an Uber driver means Uber somehow screwed up.

Same thing with the suicides at Foxconn. Their worker suicide rate was lower than the suicide rate for the U.S. But because people were incorrectly comparing to a zero baseline, the perception was that Foxconn was doing something wrong and it became news. I even remember a hit piece making the rounds in the media years ago decrying the number of women in the military being raped. The Pentagon reviewed the numbers, and determined the frequency of rapes in the military was the same as in the general population. And if you factored in the age distribution of people in the service, the rape incident rate was substantially lower than among people of the same age in the general population. But again, comparing to a zero baseline led to the unrealistic expectation that there should be zero rapes.

"Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." - Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[turbidostato]

"There is no such thing as zero risk."

On one hand, *if* there's no such thing as zero risk, don't advertise your service as being safe. Otherwise, there's awaiting a nice fine for you.

On the other hand, yes, there is such a thing as zero risk. I.e: once you are dead there is zero risk of you saying nonsenses anymore.

See what I did here?

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[PopeRatzo]

But it's also not safe to be a taxi passenger.

It's about as safe as being a passenger in your own car. With the millions of taxi rides every day, how many do you think result in harm to the passenger?

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe Taxi Drivers need an App which enables them to instantly do a criminal background check on their passengers?

Yes.

http://www.film4.com/media/ima...

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[tlambert]

"There is no such thing as zero risk."

On one hand, *if* there's no such thing as zero risk, don't advertise your service as being safe. Otherwise, there's awaiting a nice fine for you.

On the other hand, yes, there is such a thing as zero risk. I.e: once you are dead there is zero risk of you saying nonsenses anymore.

See what I did here?

I think there is probably zero risk of him understanding that comment as anything as smarmy...

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[drinkypoo]

But it's also not safe to be a taxi passenger.

It's about as safe as being a passenger in your own car.

Uh, no. I'm safe from whole classes of crime in my own car which involve taxi drivers. My car also has far superior crash safety to any taxi I've ever been in.

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[PopeRatzo]

Uh, no. I'm safe from whole classes of crime in my own car which involve taxi drivers. My car also has far superior crash safety to any taxi I've ever been in.

You're about 1/4 as likely to be in a traffic accident and hurt in a taxi than in your personal car.

Re:Taxi companies with modpoints?

[drinkypoo]

You're about 1/4 as likely to be in a traffic accident and hurt in a taxi than in your personal car.

Maybe in your shitpile personal car. Mine is excellent in the offset crash test, the side crash test, the front crash test, the rear crash test... unlike any taxi.

Even a Murderer....

[omnichad]

Even someone who commits murder is not necessarily an unsafe driver. I think it's unnecessary to call out the charges without also giving the details of the crime.

Not that murder isn't bad, but I wouldn't fear for my life if my driver was convicted of murder when it was due to an abusive relationship that they couldn't get out of, for example. Generally only serial killers tend to murder complete strangers that they have no history with.

Re:Even a Murderer....

[omnichad]

And then they were punished properly through the legal system and are a free person.

Or a wide variety of opportunistic killers such as home invaders, muggers, mass shooters, etc.

Which should be accounted for in the background check.

Re:Even a Murderer....

[omnichad]

Way to miss the point. The "murderer" was called out in the article without context on their conviction. It could just as easily have been manslaughter where there was no intent, or self defense that wasn't ruled as such.

The job still belongs to the background check to clear them, but letting a "murderer" through is not a failure in and of itself without context.

Re:Even a Murderer....

[omnichad]

And to add to that, "sex offender" could easily mean someone who urinated on the side of the highway. Calling out the name of the conviction category doesn't say whether or not they should get through a background check.

Re:And what if the $15 million isn't paid?

[ddtmm]

No, it shows exactly the opposite. That laws can be ignored, ...

Exactly. How many billions are they worth? I think they should have to pay it before the end of the week, or take them offline until it's paid.

Sex offenders?

[Noxal]

So if I get arrested for pissing in an alley I can never drive for uber?

Re:Sex offenders?

[The-Ixian]

No, you can't drive for uber because you have poor impulse control...

Re:Sex offenders?

[Alumoi]

WTF, man, are you so desperate that you'd drive for uber? Ain't no McD in your area hiring?

Re:Sex offenders?

[fluffernutter]

You could probably piss on the riders and still drive for Uber.

Nice strawman there.

[denzacar]

"Warning! This taxi contains a company known to the State of California to not kowtow to the carefully built up government genuflection&donation industry."

More like "Warning! This taxi company is known for being convicted for lying to its customers about the level of safety regulations it practices."

But that's still a nice strawman. You made it yourself or did you buy it at a strawman store?
Cause I hear those are made by starving African children of Cambodia.
So when you're using such a strawman, you're financing slavery.

Govt is happy to fix society

[rsilvergun]

But our 1%ers have spent the last 40 years with the help of guys like Reagan, Bush Jr and Karl Rove convincing everyone that govt is a problem, not a solution.

Re:Govt is happy to fix society

[drinkypoo]

But our 1%ers have spent the last 40 years with the help of guys like Reagan, Bush Jr and Karl Rove convincing everyone that govt is a problem, not a solution.

You do realize that government is operated by business, right? No, wait, clearly you don't. They write the rules, they decide who's going to get appointed (remember all those Monsanto-related appointments that Obama made?) and they decide who gets elected by controlling the debate in the media. Virtually everyone "elected" to our government is a corporate stooge of some sort.

What?

[wisnoskij]

Who gets sued for misleading advertising? And for such a ridiculously subjective claim? There are regular adds that spew objectively false disproven data, and no one bats an eye at them.

There is nothign more unjust then the piecemeal uneven application of a law.

Re:What?

[tlambert]

Who gets sued for misleading advertising?

Kevin Trudeau, for one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Always wondered

[MitchDev]

Why we bother with the so-called "rehabilitation" instead of just putting criminals down. I mean, if they can;t get jobs because of their records when they get out, what options does that leave them with?

Re:Always wondered

[bluefoxlucid]

I did not and will not put a revocation clause for felony offence in my Citizen's Dividend plan. I refuse to disenfranchise Americans from their rightful public support just because they got arrested; if you're left with nothing and thrown into the streets to die, why would you not become a dangerous criminal? Do you have a choice? You must steal and mug and deal drugs and prostitute to survive; that's not good policy.

Re:Always wondered

[MitchDev]

Exactly!
What do you expect to happen when you brand a person as unemployable and leave them to their own devices to try to survive?

Sure, that's just what *they* want!

[tlambert]

If you want to assume everyone is likely to kill you then feel free to never leave the basement.

Sure, that's just what *they* want!

THEN they FLOOD the basement!

And if it IS paid?

[tlambert]

No, it shows exactly the opposite. That laws can be ignored, ...

Exactly. How many billions are they worth? I think they should have to pay it before the end of the week, or take them offline until it's paid.

And if it IS paid?

Put them back online, because they've paid the government its pound of flesh, and therefore everything is all hunky-dory.

Because this isn't really about protecting the public against deceptive trade practices, it's about revenue collection based on allegations of deceptive trade practices, and it really doesn't matter if the trade practices were even deceptive in the first place, does it, since the important part is the revenue collection.

More gold leaf for city hall! Hell! Fine them again! More gold leaf for *every* city hall, not just San Francisco!

Uber

[MitchDev]

Uber needs a new slogan: "We're cheaper than regular taxis, and there are reasons for that!"

Re:Uber

[fluffernutter]

We're the inexpensive choice... but you might get raped.

Re:Uber

[MitchDev]

"It's not just a car ride, it's an adventure!"

Re:Ban Uber from doing business there

[fluffernutter]

Just wait for Uber drivers' cars to start reaching the 5-10 year old point and have them try to stretch them out as long as possible because they have 180,000 miles and they can't pay people to take them.