Uber said it found more than 100 instances in which passengers who claimed its drivers sexually assaulted or harassed them offered bogus or doctored receipts to prove ridership, or did not explain their inability to provide receipts.
In a Wednesday court filing, Uber urged U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco to order 21 plaintiffs with suspect receipts to justify why their claims should not be dismissed, and 90 plaintiffs with no receipts to either provide them or “non-boilerplate” reasons for their absence.
At least 11 law firms represent the various plaintiffs, court papers show. They were not accused of wrongdoing.
Uber is trying to reduce its liability in nationwide federal litigation comprising more than 2,450 lawsuits alleging driver misconduct. The San Francisco-based company faces several hundred additional lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court.
“We take any allegations seriously and are reviewing Uber’s latest claims,” lawyers Rachel Abrams, Sarah London and Roopal Luhana, who lead the federal litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement.
They added that Uber knows some sexual assault victims may lack receipts because other people ordered their rides, and the possible elevated risk of being assaulted that guest passengers face makes Uber’s focus on documentation “more troubling.”
Uber has maintained it should not be liable for criminal conduct by drivers it connects with passengers, and that its background checks and disclosures were sufficient.
On July 8, Breyer dismissed some fraud and liability claims that were based on ads promoting Uber’s ride-sharing service as a safe alternative to drunk driving.
In Wednesday’s filing, Uber said some fake receipts appear to have been generated through third-party websites.
Uber said some receipts contained math errors or bogus surcharges, changed female driver names to male names, were time-stamped before rides occurred, had stray marks, or used formatting that does not match its own.
One plaintiff submitted two receipts for a single ride, while two plaintiffs submitted different versions of the same receipt, the company said.
“Nothing is more critical to the integrity of our judicial system than honesty,” Uber said. “It is difficult to conceive an act of misconduct graver than the outright fabrication of evidence that plaintiffs here undertook.”
The case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
