Slashdot Mirror


Uber Will Pay $20 Million For Exaggerating Drivers' Earnings (engadget.com)

Uber is paying $20 million to settle allegations that it duped people into driving for its ride-hailing service with false promises about how much they would earn and how much they would have to pay to finance a car. From a report: The FTC claimed that Uber was advertising an annual median income of over $90,000 per year for uberX drivers in New York and more than $74,000 for uberX drivers in San Francisco. But, as the commission found out, less than 10 percent of all drivers in those cities actually make that much. The complaint also alleges that Uber was inflating the hourly earnings on job boards like Craigslist. New drivers who financed a new car through Uber's Vehicle Solutions Program found out the company's claims were too good to be true as well. Although Uber told new drivers they would be able to lease a new car for around $119 per week, the actual lease rates never dipped below $200 from late 2013 to April 2015. And, despite its promise of delivering "the best financing options available," it turns out that Uber's rates were actually worse than consumers with similar credit scores could have gotten elsewhere. Adding insult to overpriced injury, Uber tacked on mileage limits to lease agreements that were advertised with unlimited mileage.

79 comments

  1. Who Cares... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Trump is President and the world's going to fucking end soon. God help us all.

  2. How by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this not criminal? Why hasn't someone been arrested. Will UBER admit wrong doing?

    1. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will UBER admit wrong doing?

      Haha. Good one!

    2. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase a well known politician, it's because they're smart.

    3. Re:How by pla · · Score: 1

      The only part of that that sounds potentially unkosher is the unlimited miles on the leases. Everything else looks like just a matter of people failing to do their own damned due diligence.

      Every employer brags about their awesome compensation package; any employee making $20.50/hour (the average for a NYC Uber driver) who thinks they'll make $90k a year damned well better plan on working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. And their leases sucked? Hey, maybe shop the fuck around before you pay someone (especially your employer) for a product or service offered by a million other sources?

    4. Re:How by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Thanks to corporate lobbying, laws have been amended and made so that individuals are hardly held responsible for corporate fuck ups.

    5. Re:How by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Really Potsy....

      "Uber told new drivers they would be able to lease a new car for around $119 per week, the actual lease rates never dipped below $200 from late 2013 to April 2015"

      "despite its promise of delivering "the best financing options available," it turns out that Uber's rates were actually worse than consumers with similar credit scores could have gotten elsewhere."

      You might want to try reading sometime. It will help you look less like an ass.

    6. Re: How by Luthair · · Score: 1

      An idea I had the other day was to also fine executives personally for their companies missbehaviour.

    7. Re: How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the government can bring this suit with a straight face.

      Every politician promises X and it will only cost Y, then when it comes time to deliver it turns out to be X/2 at a cost of Yx2. Without fail.

    8. Re:How by geekmux · · Score: 1

      How is this not criminal? Why hasn't someone been arrested. Will UBER admit wrong doing?

      Most of the time, a company will agree to pay a settlement in exchange for actually admitting any fault whatsoever.

      This of course, allows executives to do the same thing over again and again without ever actually admitting to being an unethical bunch of lying shitbags running a company.

    9. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Median income of 90k is a specific claim. If they said that you "could make up to 90k / year" they would have been fine as you say due to use of weasel words.

    10. Re: How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why companies have insurance for the board, they ain't gunna work if they end up be liable.

    11. Re: How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but with politicians you expect them to lie.

    12. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, most of this sounds like Jewish approved food to you?

    13. Re:How by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If your "brag" is demonstrably false - that is more commonly known as "fraud" - which is illegal when us mere mortals do it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re: How by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      You can expect American politicians to lie. Politicians in countries that are functioning democracies are less likely to lie because they know they can be held to account. American politicians are rewarded by the two-party system for lying, so they lie a lot. History could not be more clear: American's prefer to vote for politicians who lie. If they didn't, Dennis Kucinich would have served two terms as President and Bernie Sanders would have been sign in this week. Instead, the biggest liar won, narrowly beating the second biggest liar.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
  3. Encouraging corporate arrogance. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I'm now more curious about is the true impact of a $20 million dollar penalty against corporate lying. If it is a mere slap on the wrist financially, then the FTC is doing nothing but encouraging this kind of arrogant fucking behavior by organizations. They are literally perpetuating the concept that it's OK to bullshit and lie about products. If that's the case, you might as well abolish all regulatory agencies.

    The impact is becoming far too great to continue to ignore the fact that accountability does not exist within corporations anymore. Neither does ethics. Capitalistic greed has trumped all.

    1. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by plopez · · Score: 1

      Well seeing how uber is already losing huge sums of money either none or the straw that breaks the camels back.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by plopez · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bullshit and lying is capitalist SOP. See wall street, defense contractors, oil companies, automakers (hello GM and Volkswagen!), and many many more.

      But the answer is obvious, deregulate! Let the invisible hand of The Free Market Prevail!. Just like it did in the 1800s!

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      What I'm now more curious about is the true impact of a $20 million dollar penalty against corporate lying.

      I am even more curious about where this $20 million goes.
      Perhaps to increase the salaries of all those Uber drivers? No?

    4. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      All hail the invisible hand! May it's fingers be forever long and noodley!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plopez, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

    6. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if the State wasn't such a fucking nanny then the free market could work because people would actually read what they sign (and generally be more skeptical) rather than just assuming the government has protected their fragile brains. Do you really want a world where bureaucrats need to be called in to approve every transaction that two people complete? Scammers will still scam... in fact it will be easier because you and every other idiot will REEEEE out and say "b.. bu. but the LAW says they can't harm me so I never look at anything I do... I just assume the world is made of rainbows and candy because the government said so"

      Capitalism's solution to lies and scams just requires a ounce of personal responsibility in your decisions (do these drivers have no responsibility to make sure the deal they signed up for makes ANY sense?) rather than requiring the government to evaluate all this for you. Do I think Uber is Scum - YES. Do I think they should have to pay a whole lot more than $20 million - YES. Do I think what happened is the fault of "capitalism" - HELL THE FUCK NO.

      SPOILER ALERT - What Uber is is ALREADY ILLEGAL BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY. In other words THE GOVERNMENT WRITING A LAW DIDN'T HELP ANYONE.

      What we need the in the USA and the world is a) better business and finance education starting in elementary school and going through high school b) classes and information about scams, reading what you fucking agree to, generally functioning as a real adult, etc. Learning how cells multiply doesn't help a young kid when he is knee deep in debt because school never spent even 15 minutes teaching him how to evaluate personal finance decisions. Our education priorities are fucked up. Lets make sure high school educated kids know how to approximate the launch of a geostationary satellite and calculate frequency of different light waves but not teach them about contracts and compound interest.

      This world is ridiculous. I see people sign shit without reading it all the time - as if reading it would offend someone. It amazes me. Don't sign shit without reading it. If it doesn't say what the advertising says (it NEVER does) then you are going to get fucked on whatever is worded differently. Don't "trust" them.

    7. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      The correct fine would be to take literally all profit uber has made via these deceptive practices and treble it, applying ultimate responsibility for paying to top 10% shareholders and all executive level staff who held shares at any point during the practice without any regard whatsoever for the probability that debt causes the company to fold.

      Intentional wrongdoing should always cost a company treble everything it made via the wrongdoing and the debt follow the key players so they can't simply fold up and open a new paper entity without paying the price. Penalties should never be reduced to keep a company from folding either.

      Of course the fines should preempt all other creditors and go into the justice department budget. We do this to give police misplaced priorities with regard to drug offenders why not use the same tactic to give valid priorities to the justice department regarding corporate wrongdoing?

      Anything less and companies will just look at potential fines as the cost of doing business... if you made a million and paid a 500k fine why would you pass on to the next shady practice?

    8. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      The correct fine would be to take literally all profit uber has made via these deceptive practices

      So a fine of zero dollars?

      and treble it

      Still zero.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of finance and business education in schools is shocking by its omission.

      Everyone should learn about fractional reserve banking and the fucking scam that it is, and what it truly means for our society and how it shapes it.

    10. Re: Encouraging corporate arrogance. by plopez · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work. See the laize fair economics of the 1800s. I have real world evidence to back me up.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    11. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by cstacy · · Score: 1

      I am even more curious about where this $20 million goes.
      Perhaps to increase the salaries of all those Uber drivers? No?

      Uber drivers do not get salaries. They are paid by the mile.

      It's only paid for miles while the passenger is in the car, of course. The miles getting to the pickup are not paid.
      And all expenses and vehicle cost and maintenance are paid by the drivers. There are no health care or other benefits.

      Operating cost is about 60-70 centers per mile; drivers are paid about 100 cents.
      Rides are usually 2 miles, (plus 1 to 10 miles of unpaid overhead) with between zero and 4 rides per hour.
      Most rides are the minimum fare: driver gets $4 gross.

      Typical gross income for a busy driver in a major city is about $12/hour (before expenses, taxes, healthcare, etc.)
      The net income is much less than half that.

      Drivers often actually lose more than that, when they are dispatched to farther pickups.
      (Drive for 7 miles, in about 16 minutes, to pick up someone who is just going 1 mile down the
      block to get some smokes. Uber does not allow the driver to know the destination or length of trip
      until the passenger is actually accepted, picked up, and in the car.)

      Most drivers talk about how much money they "made", and even though they admit it's only around $10/hour,
      that's before all their expenses, which they never count. Notice the high turnover of drivers,
      and how constantly desperate Uber is to hire new drivers.

      What I don't quite understand is how Uber will make money at the end of the day!
      Currently, they are losing tremendous (more than a half-BILLION per quarter) amounts of money.
      The fare that a passenger pays, never covers Uber's cost for the trip.
      Maybe somehow when it's all fully self-driving cars, but that's very far off,
      and every car manufacturer and high-tech megacompany will compete with Uber.

    12. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we need the in the USA and the world is a) better business and finance education starting in elementary school and going through high school b) classes and information about scams, reading what you fucking agree to, generally functioning as a real adult, etc.

      What? And destroy the nanny state we're trying to implement?

    13. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That's why sociopaths make the best leaders, because their point of view is always the appropriate point of view.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I am guessing that the half-billion per quarter is coming out of their investors' asses. So who is getting the money that UBER is losing? Is this true redistribution of wealth to the poor albeit at a high price to them?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    15. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      You are missing the real point which is to provide some sort of income from the uber rich to the government of the United States. While the US will not "Tax" the corporations involved, they can still penalize the corporation and save face.

    16. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      What I don't quite understand is how Uber will make money at the end of the day!

      Rich asshats throw money at them en mass looking for the next yuge moneymaker. Whats not to understand.

    17. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      RIAA MPIAA accounting. We are all screwed.

    18. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by geekmux · · Score: 1

      You are missing the real point which is to provide some sort of income from the uber rich to the government of the United States. While the US will not "Tax" the corporations involved, they can still penalize the corporation and save face.

      Sorry, but trying to "save face" is a rather stupid excuse for not taxing these corporations in the first place, as they should.

      Besides, that whole income-by-penalty plan doesn't always work for the government of the United States. See, they've legalized this whole get-out-of-jail-free system called bankruptcy...

    19. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by TokyoJimu · · Score: 2

      I believe it's not just the investors who are subsidizing Uber rides. It's also the math-challenged drivers. And there seems to be excessive churn in the driver ranks, as evidenced by the increasingly abundant and aggressive recruiting ads I hear. Once drivers figure out they aren't really making money, they abandon the gig.

      A not too sharp friend of mine recently started driving for Uber. He was excited to tell me he made $1000 in his first month driving part-time. So I asked him how many miles he had to drive to earn that. About 2200 miles, he said. I pointed out to him that driving a late-model car like he has costs about 50 cents per mile, including depreciation, maintenance, fuel, etc. Not to mention the self-employment and other taxes he will have to pay on his income. In fact, he didn't even realize that he would have to pay taxes or that Uber would be sending a Form 1099 to him and the IRS.

      One driver told me he rents his car by the day and even driving 12 to 15 hours he often doesn't make enough to pay the daily rental fee.

      I don't see how this scam can go on much longer. It shouldn't cost Uber much to just run a website and payment system, but as long as investors and drivers have to subsidize the fares to attract customers...

    20. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So THESE people who DID read something before they signed it, do not get to demand the government give them restitution when the other party flat out failed to live up to their responsibilities as per what was written ?

      Fraud is not a crime the government is SUPPOSED to punish ?

      Damn you free market fundamentalists are such fucking idiots.

      No. The problem here is not the "nanny state" - if anthing it's the government not doing their job well enough. It's the fact that the punishment for fraud is usually smaller than the profits you can make from it.
      When EVERY fraudster gets to neighbours with Bernie Madoff this shit will end. Your plan would make it worse, because it doesn't matter what the contract says if the other party will not face any negative consequences for flat-out ignoring it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    21. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >See, they've legalized this whole get-out-of-jail-free system called bankruptcy...

      Yeah... until ordinary people started using it, now there's a huge push (10 bucks says you can instantly guess which party's politicians are driving it) to make it much harder for individuals to go bankrupt - all filled with little exceptions so big corporations can still do it easily.

      You know, because paying your future earnings for the rest of your life on a fraudulent debt you can never pay off and basically being forced into indentured servitude stopped being considered a violation of the constitution when FDR died.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What I'm now more curious about is the true impact of a $20 million dollar penalty against corporate lying. If it is a mere slap on the wrist financially, then the FTC is doing nothing but encouraging this kind of arrogant fucking behavior by organizations. They are literally perpetuating the concept that it's OK to bullshit and lie about products. If that's the case, you might as well abolish all regulatory agencies.

      The impact is becoming far too great to continue to ignore the fact that accountability does not exist within corporations anymore. Neither does ethics. Capitalistic greed has trumped all.

      Think of it more as organized crime; only the government is allowed to cheat its citizens and if you want to do that also, then they expect their cut. The difference is that organized crime does not expect its victims to praise it while the government does; when the government cheats you, then it is for your own good.

    23. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by cstacy · · Score: 1

      What I don't quite understand is how Uber will make money at the end of the day!

      Rich asshats throw money at them en mass looking for the next yuge moneymaker. Whats not to understand.

      What's not to understand is the business plan which those investors are looking at, wherein they expect Uber to be a "yuge moneymaker".
      Do you have some insight into this? Because while it is obvious to you, slower people like myself don't get it.
      By what means will Uber become profitable so that the investors will get their money back and more?

    24. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by cstacy · · Score: 1

      . It shouldn't cost Uber much to just run a website and payment system, but as long as investors and drivers have to subsidize the fares to attract customers...

      It's a pretty complex and demanding "just run a website and payment system", but it's not billions of dollars a year hard.
      But if they have to subsidize the fares as they say (is that billions?), how will they eventually make money?
      Why won't Google or Apple or Ford or everyone else just come along with the self-driving cars and clean Uber's clock?

      Patents is all I can come up with.
      (But then to explain Lyft and other existing competitors.)

    25. Re: Encouraging corporate arrogance. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Real world evidence? Hah! We have alternative facts!

    26. Re:Encouraging corporate arrogance. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      >>>> he made $1000 in his first month

      I keep being amazed at how many people can't distinguish between the "take" and the "net". I used to know someone who scalped tickets and would say that he "made" whatever he sold something for, completely ignoring what he had paid for them.

  4. Fines and consequences by phorm · · Score: 2

    The correct solution would be to apply the fine and terminate any monies owing on existing vehicle financing, as well as possibly refunding monies already paid. After all, those monies and the contract are basically based on fraud and false advertising.

    1. Re:Fines and consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The correct solution would be to force Uber to pay their drivers what they claimed they pay them.

  5. $20M is a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will buy you 20 medallions in NYC.

  6. Uber caught lying? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why should we not be surprised? This is the same company which claims it's a "ride sharing" company, not a taxi company, yet as far as I know, not a single one of their drivers is picking up people who want to go the same direction as the driver.

    Instead, the people contact some random Uber driver to pick them up at a specific location then be driven to the location of their choice, all for a fee.

    That certainly is an interesting definition of "ride sharing" especially in one of the more recent incidents where an Uber driver drove someone from Virginia to New York and back. I highly doubt the driver was already going that route.

    That Uber should now be found guilty of duping people into believing they could make X dollars a year by driving for them (isn't that the way a cab driver works, they drive for a company?), or that Uber was deliberately fudging numbers on the costs involved to lease a vehicle from them shouldn't surprise anyone, especially when this company, despite all the money they're bilking from people, still can't turn a profit.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Uber caught lying? by gnick · · Score: 1

      That Uber should now be found guilty of duping people into believing they could make X dollars a year by driving for them (isn't that the way a cab driver works, they drive for a company?), or that Uber was deliberately fudging numbers on the costs involved to lease a vehicle from them...

      These were huge mistakes by Uber IMO. By saying "You could make up to X or more annually!", they're abandoning their "get your side hustle on" mantra and acting more like an employer encouraging driving careers. If the drivers are indeed employees, Uber is in violation of all kinds of stuff.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Uber caught lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point they are closer to a law firm than a ride sharing company. In fact, they probably will have more lawyers on staff than any other employee type given all their legal troubles.

    3. Re:Uber caught lying? by cstacy · · Score: 1

      At this point they are closer to a law firm than a ride sharing company. In fact, they probably will have more lawyers on staff than any other employee type given all their legal troubles.

      mod parent up - LOL!!

    4. Re:Uber caught lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uber's business practices are not shocking at all. I happen to live in a big city, briefly drove cab, and a few years ago the local Yellow Cab was forced to spend millions on upgrades (GPS, ADA, etc.) while companies like Uber and Lyft had no such restrictions. Additionally, I had to be drug tested, fingerprinted, and take classes on how to drive passengers around. Not that I feel sorry for Yellow by any means - but I wasn't scum either. It was supposed be $40 from the major airport to anywhere in the city. I found this out after paying $85. Got my $45 back and an apology - eventually.

      Any driver for any company will try to rip you off if they think you're a sucker. Don't take their crap.

    5. Re:Uber caught lying? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      ...not a single one of their drivers is picking up people who want to go the same direction as the driver.

      Not to disagree with your main point. I actually agree with you for the most part.

      But this is called a destination filter. As drivers, we're only allowed to use this feature twice a day. For a part-time driver who's only driving to work and back each day, this is ok. For a full-time driver, the idea is to use that destination filter once at the beginning of your shift and once at the end of your shift, so as to not waste gas when you're ready to go home. But in between, you don't want to move your car too much while waiting for the next fare, because as an Uber driver you're operating on razor thin margins and you'd be wasting gas if you did that.

      By the way, this is one reason the taxi system is so antiquated. Some taxis from outside the suburbs of a city with hard-to-get medaillons are only allowed to drop off passengers in that city, but not pick them up. In other words, in those cities where the medallions are very expensive to get, the system forces outside taxis to do return trips without passengers in the back. This is actually super wasteful. This increases gridlock, doubles the price for those trips, and reduces the number of available taxis at a time when they're really needed. If you ask me, taxis should be only regulated at the state level, not at the city level. Taxis regularly cross city boundaries. That's a fact of our modern era.

      Also, there is something called UberPool (or LyftLine if you use Lyft), which is only available in some areas. The idea is that we pick up person A at one location, pick up person B on the way, pick up person C on the way, drop off person A on the way, drop off person B on the way, and then drop off person C. This actually works extremely well. Several times, I've actually picked up three people that didn't know each other from the same exact night club, just because they were all going in the same general direction. Or I've done the reverse, and picked up three different people at different locations, only to bring them to the same exact location. Although, if person A agrees to do UberPool and we don't pick up anyone else on the way, their fare still gets a discount of 20%. And where fares are not fixed by government regulations, UberPool passengers save more money than 20% the more they can split their journey with other passengers that we've picked up on the way. This feature is especially popular with University students, young professionals, and newbies who got confused by the interface.

      ...despite all the money they're bilking from people, still can't turn a profit.

      By the way, Uber is profitable in the US. It's just not profitable worldwide.
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      In any case, I do agree that the company is very deceptive with the way it compensates drivers, it basically lies to us all the freaking time, but I just wanted to set the record straight about a few things.

  7. a true idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit and lying is capitalist SOP.

    in the mind of the true idiot, more and more wrong makes right

  8. If they where W2 then there may of been even more by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    If they where W2 then there may of been even more like DOL, civil cases, maybe even failure to pay wage = jail.

  9. Gig economy in a nutshell by sjames · · Score: 1

    Work more, get poorer.

    1. Re:Gig economy in a nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But driving a car is meant to pay a pittance. Cayenne8 said so!

  10. DISRUPT TEH GIBSON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. Uber's Vehicle Solutions Program? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 2

    This is the first I have heard of the "Uber's Vehicle Solutions Program". I guess they were inspired by "GMAC Financing", the lucrative money-lending division of GM.

    So far, they are "not a taxi company". Now I guess they are "not a bank". What's next, "not an arms dealer"?

    1. Re:Uber's Vehicle Solutions Program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's our motto at Rosoboronexport -- not an arms dealer -- just a purveyor of fine Soviet killing machines.

  12. bush & hillary fail to speak to each other.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    despite standing side by side... stuffyness reigns.. cease fire stand down... starvation & deception still leading killers of us... some still calling this 'weather'? sing along... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M

  13. Re:If they where W2 then there may of been even mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have*

  14. 1500 years ago, to be precise by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yes, laws were indeed made so that a corporation itself could be sued, rather than trying to prove which individual employee was responsible and trying to recover from that person. Specifically, this occurred during the reign of Justinian the Great, around 534 AD.

    1. Re:1500 years ago, to be precise by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You're rather misrepresenting history - seeing as corporations weren't invented yet when Justinian was alive, in fact they were only invented about a thousand years later. The Dutch East India Corporation was the first such entity to exist. It had a private army and navy - both among the largest in the world at the time. It came to own about 25% of the land-surface of the earth. People in those places were not "citizens", you know having rights and such, they were divided between "slaves" and "employees".
      The next two corporations were the British East India Corporation - a direct clone of it's Dutch forebear, though it was more successful and ended up owning well over a third of the world's land surface. The other was the French American Colonial Corporation - which billed itself as a replica of the Dutch forebear, but was nothing but a massive Ponzi scheme from day one. It was founded by a Murderer who had fled Scottland to avoid his execution. It paid old investors purely from money earned from new investors (since it's Louisianna colony never made any money), and when it ran out of those the chairman got himself appointed head of the French central bank and simply printed money to pay investors - rapidly devaluing the currency, destroying the French economy, impoverishing the nation and becoming the single most important cause of the subsequent French revolution.

      So right from the start, corporations have been insidious human rights abusers and large-scale committers of fraud. There has yet to be one that isn't all of the above.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. Lawyers by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

    After the lawyers take their cut, each driver can expect enough to buy an air freshener to hang on their rear view mirror.

    --
    How ya like dat?
    1. Re:Lawyers by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Huh? This was a government action, not a class-action suit by the drivers. The drivers will get nothing from this settlement. The drivers can bring their own suit if they want.

  16. Remind me again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much of that $20 million can we expect to find its way into the hands of those drivers affected? None? Alright, sounds about right. Carry on.

  17. $90k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putting Uber's false advertising aside for a moment, how did anyone believe that you can make $90k per year being a cheaper alternative to a taxi cab?

  18. Wow by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Buy you car and pay for it, and all maintenance, accept all risk, and give us 5%. There are a lot of rubes out there but I suspect also a lot of people who didn't exactly feel the amazing economy we are now all supposed to be benefiting from.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  19. Re:HEY CUM DRINKERS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a Cum Drinkers Unite post? Would you be the lead Cum Drinker then?

  20. Just because most don't doesn't mean much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm on Uber's side on the first half of this. Just because some people will earn significantly more because of the number of hours put doesn't mean that the majority of drivers using Uber will. I'm also going to say this. Leasing companies are all crook'd. Advertising frequently is and some of the claims probably are fraudulent and they may be reasonably prosecutable.

    If you prefer liberty over tyranny check out the Free State Project. It's a migration effort of liberty activists who are moving to New Hampshire for the purpose of forming a liberty-friendly state. New Hampshire is already better than other places and given the population size there is real change happening already. Uber isn't a great solution, but there are already answers to the problems of Uber. Cell 411 gives users the ability to set their own rates and payment isn't run through Cell 411. So you can make payments in Bitcoin or whatever other currency a driver will accept. It's not totally decentralized nor free software- so there is a way to go before we have an ideal Uber-like liberty-friendly system. However the market has proven itself capable of adapting without the need for government.

  21. Fuckers actually believed them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's worse is that fuckers actually believe that line of bullshit.

    Hell, I find it dubious that any drivers made 90k, anywhere. I'm guessing Uber has a "friends and family" of executives plan and pays a few drivers well above the market rate.

  22. Publicana by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The Roman Republic issued government contracts to build aquaducts, chariots to publicani (publicly held corporations) who bid on the projects. One publicana had a contract to handle the geese on the capital. Roman publicani could have numerous investors (stockholders), and be run by a few managers. Some employed thousands of workers and had limited liability.

    Did the Roman corporations attract a lot of investors, like today' stock market does? Polybius wrote:
    __
    There is scarcely a soul, one might say, who does not have some interest in these contracts and the profits which are derived from them.
    __
    Polybius, Histories IV, circa 170 BC

    Somebody lied to you, Silentcoder. A lie big enough that one must rewrite thousands of years of history to believe it.

    1. Re:Publicana by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So these publicani came into being for one specific government-issued contract, and was disbanded immediately after it's completion... yes that's *just* like a corporation... oh wait, no, it's NOTHING like a corporation.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Publicana by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      So these publicani came into being for one specific government-issued contract, and was disbanded immediately after it's completion... yes that's *just* like a corporation... oh wait, no, it's NOTHING like a corporation

      Wrong again. This is exactly how Donald Trump has made money while the projects with his name on them go bankrupt one after another. Same is done for other buildings, condo complexes, shopping malls, and other projects. Each is set up as its own corporation as if it has no connection to anything else that the developer, producer, and constructor has ever done or will ever do, and the project originators are now hired as subcontractors (instead of being the bosses). The project is done to some point of completion, at which the individual units (apartments, town houses, stores) are sold off to end-buyers. Now the originators leave to do other things. Point is, when a problem appears a year or two down the road, and the buyers want to complain to the construction company, THERE ISN'T ONE - the "building construction" corporation has become an empty shell or withered completely. I know you're thinking of the megacorps that persist and engulf and devour, but the use of incorporating to isolate is even more prevalent.

  23. Begin the Class Actions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect the class action lawsuits should follow soon.

    What I wanna know is who keeps throwing money at these bozos? Uber, as a company, is a dead man walking. I'd be REALLY surprised if they are still around in two years.

  24. Corporations don't break laws, people do by lbates_35476 · · Score: 1

    This is fraud and the people that committed it should be arrested, tried, and convicted. Having them pay "fines" won't stop this sort of activity, but sending corporate management to jail will most certainly stop it. This is just like the banks who pay the fines and chalk it up as a cost of doing business.