An administrative law judge for California’s Public Utilities Commission leveled a $59 million fine on Uber on Monday for refusing to divulge data on sexual assault linked to the popular ride-hailing company. Historically, Uber has faced lawsuits over sexual assaults linked to the rideshare app.

The commission has been asking Uber for detailed information about an internal report the company itself made public in December 2019 that revealed 5,981 instances of sexual assault had been alleged during Uber rides in 2017 and 2018. Uber officials and the company’s lawyers have resisted turning over all the records the utilities commission is seeking, arguing in part that doing so would expose the victims and deny their anonymity.

In January, the judge refused Uber’s request to let them off the hook from answering the commission’s demands to know more about the alleged assaults and the report that brought them to light. Instead, Uber was told it could file its response under seal to protect the victims’ privacy.

Still, Uber refused.

In her ruling Monday, Chief Administrative Law Judge Anne E. Simon gave Uber 30 days to either appeal or comply by providing “the date, time, and location of each assault, a description of the circumstances of each assault, the name and contact information for each witness and the name and contact information of each person to whom the assault was reported.”

The company will be allowed to “provide a code or some other signifier rather than a victim’s name” Judge Simon’s ruling said. “This would allow commission staff a way to conduct a follow up investigation with Uber without the disclosure of the victim’s name.”

If Uber still doesn’t comply, the utilities commission said it could revoke the company’s license to operate in California.

A spokesman for Uber told The Washington Post this week the commission’s actions could prevent other transportation companies from making similar safety reports public.

“The CPUC has been insistent in its demands that we release the full names and contact information of sexual assault survivors without their consent. We opposed this shocking violation of privacy, alongside many victims’ rights advocates,” Uber’s Andrew Hasbun was quoted by The Post as saying. “A year later, the CPUC has changed its tune: we can provide anonymized information — yet we are also subject to a $59 million fine for not complying with the very order the CPUC has fundamentally altered.”

Judge Simon said the commission calculated the total fine by assessing Uber with the maximum penalty allowed under law — $7,500 per instance in which the company refused to answer each one of the questions put to it – for each day since the January order to comply was issued.

“What the information shows is that Uber is a billion-dollar business that can easily afford to pay the $59,085,000.00 penalty,” Judge Simon wrote. “Even during a pandemic where ridership has undoubtedly declined, Uber’s audited and certified revenues are substantial enough that the penalty amount imposed by this decision does not run afoul of the constitutional limitation against excessive fines.”

First Report Published

The Uber safety report, the first the company had ever published, put statistics to a phenomena that had been reported in the news: sexual assault during ride-sharing trips. Uber’s study showed the alleged victims of sexual assault were both riders and drivers.

In the years leading up to the report, Uber had been hit with multiple lawsuits, including one filed in April 2018 by a group of 14 women who said they had been sexually assaulted, but were forced into mandatory arbitration with the ride-hailing company.

Uber eliminated the forced arbitration clause for riders, drivers, and employees who wanted to file a sexual assault lawsuit against the company in 2019.

Executives at Lyft, Uber’s biggest rival, have said they would conduct their own safety study and release the results, but none have been made public yet.

In concluding her order to fine Uber, Judge Simon denied the commission was punishing the company for taking the initiative in informing the public about a serious safety issue.

“Rather than casting itself in the role of a victim of regulatory overreach, it is Uber who is playing the part of the obstructionist who has prevented the commission from carrying out its regulatory, investigative, and enforcement duties,” she wrote. “The Commission cannot, and will not, allow Uber to engage in such conduct with impunity.”

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.