Courtney Jorstad  |  January 29, 2015

Category: Consumer News

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Uber class action lawsuitUber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that its ride sharing program in Southern California is far from “the safest ride on the road” as it claims in its advertising materials.

California resident and plaintiff Jacob Sabatino says in his Uber class action lawsuit that he used Uber’s ride-sharing program in Orange County, California on Nov. 22, 2014 because he believed the statements by Uber that it provides “the safest ride on the road” and that it uses “industry leading” background checks on its drivers, to ensure the safety of its customers.

On the contrary, Sabatino alleges that Uber does “not have the safest ride on the road, do not use industry leading background checks, do not train or supervise their drivers, and are continuously violating California laws,” and if he had known these things were true, “he would not have used the Uber App to obtain a ride.”

Uber is a “transportation network company,” which  allows its customers to find drivers all over the country and 54 countries around the world through a smartphone app.

“To provide the army of drivers needed to support the business model, Uber solicits and retains thousands of non-professional divers throughout the United States who are willing to use their personal vehicles for rideshare services,” the Uber class action lawsuit explains.

However, “fundamental to Uber’s model is the inherent concept that members of the consuming public will be stepping into the the backseat of a stranger’s private car with virtually no oversight or protection.”

The Uber model comes with “enormous potential for things to go wrong, Uber has taken steps to shield itself from liability” by creating “wholly-owned subsidiaries” such as those listed as defendants in the Uber class action lawsuit — Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Raiser-DC, LLC and Rasier-PA, LLC.

“By engaging in this corporate stacking, Uber can claim that it has ‘no association’ with the drivers who are providing the rideshare services, even though it is the one who organizes and controls all of the activities,” the class action lawsuit alleges.

In addition, “Uber also classifies all of the drivers as independent contractors, in an effort to cut off respondeat superior liability,” Sabatino claims, which means that Uber lets its employees be responsible for Uber’s actions.

According to Sabatino, Uber clearly states on its website that “Uber is committed to connecting you to the safest ride on the road.” It also claims that “every ridesharing and livery driver is thoroughly screened through a rigorous process we’ve developed using constantly improved standards,” adding that its drivers “must go through a rigorous background check.”

It describes these background checks as “industry leading,” the California man says in his class action lawsuit.

On the contrary, Sabatino alleges that Uber does not offer a training program, oversight or supervision, nor does it ever even meet its drivers.

In addition, the Uber class action lawsuit says that “Uber recognizes that putting members of the public in strangers’ personal cars is inherently dangerous,” as the company provides “virtually no oversight or protection. There are not security cameras, no special markings on the cars, and no sense of company or authoritative oversight.”

In November 2012, Uber was fined $20,000 by the California Public Utilities Commission for running a business “as a charter-party carrier of passengers without an operating authority,” Sabatino explains.

And the California agency laid out specific guidelines for companies like Uber in 2013, which Sabatino alleges that Uber continually violates.

The California man is charging Uber with violating California’s Unfair Competition law, California’s False Advertising law, and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Michaels, Kathryn Harvey and Kianna Parviz of the MLG Automative Law, APLC.

The Uber False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Jacob Sabatino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00363, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

UPDATE: On Jan. 20, 2016, the potential Uber class action lawsuit that alleged the company falsely advertised its background check procedures ended with a private settlement.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

One thought on Uber is Far From the ‘Safest Ride on Road,’ Class Action Says

  1. Top Class Actions says:

    UPDATE: On Jan. 20, 2016, the potential Uber class action lawsuit that alleged the company falsely advertised its background check procedures ended with a private settlement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.