Uber Hit With False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

The transportation network company Uber Technologies Inc. has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the mobile app business of falsely advertising that their services were 30 percent cheaper than a cab rate for specific routes.

Lead plaintiff Sennett Devermont of California filed the Uber lawsuit after allegedly discovering that Uber’s statements of lower rates were not truthful during certain peak times.

The plaintiff, who claims to be a frequent Uber customer, says he found that there are times that a normal cab company charges less for the same route than Uber. Devermont alleges that due to Uber’s fraudulent conduct, he paid the mobile transportation service more than was expected or advertised when compared to a normal cab company.

The Uber lawsuit also accuses the mobile app company of making misleading representations regarding credits for referrals. Uber has offered customers $10 and $20 in referral credits over the years but Devermont claims that Uber does not disclose that these credits have an expiration date until after the referral is made. Devermont states that due to Uber’s failure to properly inform him of expiration dates, he has also lost referral credits.

Devermont claims to have filed the Uber false advertising class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and potential Class Members in order to “disgorge the profits they (Uber) have wrongfully obtained through the use of these unfair, unlawful, and deceptive practices.”

The proposed Uber lawsuit accuses the app company that arranges rides between drivers and customers of violating California’s unfair competition law and California’s prohibitions on false advertising. Devermont claims that Uber’s conduct was fraudulent because customers were likely to be deceived by the advertisement of cheaper service and non-expiring credits.

If successful, Devermont hopes that the Uber class action lawsuit would stop the company from using misleading ads and to properly reveal any expiration dates for credit referrals.

Devermont believes that a class action lawsuit is the best course of action to resolve these allegations as the number of potential Class Members is very large and looking at each case individually would place a burden on judicial resources. He claims finding Class Members would be easy to ascertain by viewing Uber’s corporate records.

If the Uber class action lawsuit is approved, Class Members would include all California residents who used Uber’s driver services between July 14, 2011 and the present day. Devermont has also proposed a subclass for Class Members who are California residents who viewed advertising from Uber where the company claimed to be a less expensive option than a regular cab company and another subclass for California residents who received credits for referring new business but were not immediately told that the credits had an expiration date.

Devermont is represented by Michael L. Cohen and Heather M. McKeon of Cohen McKeon LLP.

The Uber False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Sennett Devermont v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. BC588096, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District.