Blog

Uber, the ride-sharing company, has revolutionized personal transportation around the world by allowing passengers to hook up with drivers through a smartphone app. The company has also been accused of a number of dodgy business practices, one of them being a manipulation of upfront pricing. The practice has become the subject of Class Action lawsuits, one in California, and another recently filed in New York.

When one summons an Uber ride on a smartphone, the fare is calculated up front using one’s location and intended destination. Thus, everyone knows what the cost of the trip is going to be ahead of time. However, the New York suit alleges that Uber has a system that overcharges the rider, by calculating a less efficient route than the one the driver ultimately uses. For example, the rider might be charged $14 for the ride while the driver would see $12 for the actual route taken. The driver’s portion is calculated on the lower figure while Uberpockets the two dollar difference. The New York suit alleges, based on a study by a website called the Rideshare Guy who suggests that half the Uber riders in New York City are being hit with the inflated fare, resulting in a windfall of $74 million a month in New York alone.

The plaintiff in the suit assumes that Uber is following the same practice in other cities, which would mean that the ridesharing company would be raking in an unearned windfall worth an enormous amount of money. A spokesperson for Uber told the New York Post that she is looking into the matter.

For more information contact us.

We should all be treated fairly in our work. If you are employed at-will and subject to specific disciplinary measures, your employer should tell you this and stick by their word. After all, you rely on their honesty to decide if you should hire on or leave a company. That’s a big, life-altering decision that you have to make with the best information available.

So, what if your employer misleads you? Say the recruitment officer in HR implied you were hired for a certain length of time and you signed up to work at the company, and then found that the implication you relied on was false? What then?

This is fraud, and it comes in 2 flavors. One is when you signed the employment contract, it said that you could only be fired for certain reasons or that you could rely on being employed for a certain amount of time, and then your employer fires you for other reasons or before the specified time is up. Since this is easy to prove, employers try to avoid such written promises.

However, there are times when implied promises constitute fraud. If an employer tells you he or she will keep you on for a set time or has written specific forms of progressive discipline in the employee manual, that can be considered an exception to an at-will contract. (A bonus situation is that the recruitment officer will give such promises verbally and then your written contract will undercut them. Always read your contract and get all promises in writing.) In such cases, a judge would look at evidence such as regularity of promotions, duration of employment, assurances of continued employment, violations of usual employment practice in firing you, and promises made at hiring.

Fraud is always tricky to prove. You will have to bring evidence that your employer made false representations, that people high in the chain of command knew about them, that you relied on the representations and that your reliance led to you being materially injured. Most difficult of all, you have to prove that your employer intended to deceive you. It can be worth the effort though.

If your employer made promises and then broke them, you may have a case against them. Contact us to see what you can do about it.

The organizers of the now infamous Fyre Festival, which promised the luxury cultural event of the decade for the steep price of up to $100,000 each but instead turned into a disaster that closed on the first day, has attracted not one but two class action lawsuits.

The first class action is being filed in the Central District of California against concert organizers Ja Rule and Billy McFarland as well as FyreMedia. The suit alleges that lack of food, water, and adequate medical care placed the festival attendees in danger, stranding them on a remote Bahamian island. The suit also notes that participants were encouraged to upload money to digital wristbands, with the result that they had no cash for taxis and other services.

A second class action was filed in Los Angeles claiming that the organizers of the festivals committed fraud by conducting a social media campaign with celebrity “influencers” that claimed the experience would be luxurious, with yachts and supermodels partying on the beach. The reality of the festival, which by all accounts consisted of all the worst aspects of a state of nature, was different than advertised.

The plaintiffs in the two class actions are going to have to prove that the organizers of the Fyre Festival deliberately misled the attendees about the experience that was in store for them. The defendants will claim that they were naïve about the scope of the event they proposed to put on and were so overwhelmed that they had no control over the disaster that resulted.

The festival organizers, by the way, are attempting to squash criticism of the festival on social media, claiming that not only it false, but it has the likelihood of inciting “violence, rioting, or civil unrest.” Sending cease and desist orders against aggrieved festival goers has every potential of backfiring, though.

For more information contact us.

By some measures, Bose Corp’s wireless headphones are the apex of personal speaker technology. They block ambient noise while providing rich and robust sound that brings out the best in any music that a listener might select. One of Bose’s customers, however, believes that the company is using technology for more nefarious purposes, namely, collecting and selling information about user’s listening habits. A lawsuit that was recently filed in a Chicago federal court seeks an injunction against Bose to protect the consumer rights and privacy of individuals who do not want data on their listening habits to be sold to third parties.

This consumer rights and privacy lawsuit is one of many in a trend of legal actions against companies that allegedly collect and sell data about how their customers use their products without warning those customers about the data collection or giving them an opportunity to opt out of the program. Consumer usage data and related information are gold mine for marketing and advertising companies, but certain federal and state laws limit how and when that data can be collected, as well as what rights consumers have in removing themselves from any data collection programs. Mobile technology and the proliferation of smartphones has increased both the ease with which that data can be collected and the temptations to collect and use increasing amounts of that data. Consumers who value their privacy are pushing back against these efforts.

Although privacy is not a specific guarantee of the United States Constitution, a string of Supreme Court decisions that date back more than fifty years have long recognized that individuals have a right to privacy and an expectation that commercial interests will not violate that right. The attorneys at the Spencer Law Firm respect every consumer’s right to privacy and work hard to maintain that right in the face of corporations that aim to use personal information for their own financial benefit. If you believe that your consumer rights and your privacy have been violated by improper or unauthorized collection of your personal habits, please contact us for more information on how you can recover your own sense of privacy.

A class action lawsuit is being filed against Uber for their reported “Hell” program, in which they tracked drivers who worked for their competitor, Lyft. The program used software which created fake Lyft rider accounts, which were used to spoof their location and gather data on Lyft drivers.

Uber then used this information to find out which Lyft drivers also worked for Uber. When a driver was found to be working for both Lyft and Uber, Uber would target them with bonuses in an effort to get them to abandon Lyft entirely.

The “Hell” program got its name as a parallel to the nickname of the program Uber had used to track its own drivers, which earned the nickname “Heaven,” as a reference to the surveillance and tracking involved.

The class-action lawsuit, which was filed by a former Lyft driver, is based on four separate counts of privacy invasion. By intentionally collecting and intercepting communication, the lawsuit alleges, Uber violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act, and also engaged in unfair competition. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

Lawyers who were consulted by The Information, the publication that originally broke the story, said that the suit can also open Uber up to charges of breach of contract and unfair business practices on both the federal and state level.

If you’ve been wronged by a company, whether through unfair business practices, false advertising or through an invasion of privacy, we can help! Contact us for more information.

A lawsuit against the Shasta County Jail in northern California has achieved class Actions status, according to the Legal Reader. The suit, filed in Sacramento’s Federal District Court by a number of disabled inmates, alleges numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit claims that the jail has inadequate facilities for disabled prisoners, including a lack of handle bars in showers, and doorways too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs. A lack of wheelchair seating in classrooms was noted. The action also claims that disabled inmates were abused, forced to traverse numerous barriers with little or no assistance and placed on 23 hours-a-day lockdowns. Conditions were so bad, some of the plaintiffs claimed, that the inmates could not shower, sleep, or be mobile. Guards were alleged to have threatened to withhold medication if the prisoners complained.

The designation of the suit as a class action means that any disabled inmate, current or former, can join in the civil action and seek redress for the alleged violations.

Shasta County seems to be taking a benign attitude toward the lawsuit, perhaps in recognition that it has a problem with its jail. The county counsel, Jim Ross, declined to oppose the motion to make the lawsuit into a class action. In the meantime, jail officials have vowed to work with disability groups to ensure that the conditions alleged to be present at the jail are corrected to ensure that disabled inmates are treated with dignity as the law mandates. No word exists as of this writing whether or when the suit will be settled or go to trial.

For more information contact us.

The class action lawsuit brought against President Donald Trump by former students of Trump University constitutes some unfinished business that faced the president from his days as a businessman. The suit alleges that Trump defrauded the students of the university out of thousands of dollars with high-pressure sales tactics and false claims about what could be learned about the real estate business by attending the university. Trump and his associates have denied these allegations and have vowed to fight the legal action in court.

However, a federal judge hearing the case, Gonzalo P. Curiel in San Diego, has approved a settlement that will bring the class action to a close, according to the New York Times. Trump would agree to pay $25 million to settle the fraud claims but will not admit to any wrongdoing. The settlement would constitute a recovery of 90 cents on the dollar, the best possible outcome, according to the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Judge Curiel turned back a challenge to the settlement by one of the plaintiffs, a former Trump University student named Sherri Simpson. Simpson believed that the settlement was inadequate and wanted the right to sue Trump individually. Besides a bigger settlement, she wanted Trump to be criminally charged for racketeering

The settlement is satisfactory to Trump, as it removes a distraction he can ill afford to deal with as he continues to be president of the United States. The lawyers for the plaintiffs’ class believe that the agreement will provide some degree of closure to the aggrieved former students. The settlement is subject to an appeal.

For more information contact us.

After being injured in a car accident, your biggest concern should be getting better and returning to your normal routine. However, as soon as you are home from the hospital, you will have to deal with insurance companies, medical bills, and paperwork relating to your accident and personal injury claim. This is why it can be extremely beneficial to hire a personal injury lawyer after being in an auto accident. If you are on the fence about hiring a personal injury attorney to help you through this difficult time, here are a few reasons why you should consider doing so.

Experience Assessing Claims

The fact is that after being injured in a car accident, many people do not realize what their claim is worth. However, it is likely that you are owed more than medical expenses and damages to your vehicle; you may also be entitled to compensation for time off of work and personal damages. An experienced personal injury attorney will be able to best assess your claim, and will be able to help you determine what you are owed.

Someone on Your Side

Hiring a personal injury attorney is the only way to ensure that you have someone on your side during this difficult time. Insurance companies ultimately work for themselves, and may use sneaky tactics to get you to settle for less than what you are owed. Hiring an attorney will ensure that you have someone looking out for you, working to get you a proper settlement.

Reduce Your Stress

As was previously hinted at, the process of settling a personal injury dispute can be extremely time-consuming and stressful, as there is a variety of forms to fill out, deadlines to meet, and hoops to jump through. However, you should be focusing on healing during this difficult time. A personal injury attorney can remove this burden from you and allow you to focus on healing.

Contact us to learn more about the reasons why you should consider hiring a personal injury attorney after being injured in an auto accident.

In the United States we have federal and state ‘whistleblower laws,’ protections in employment law against retaliation by a workplace or employer for whistleblowing activities. These laws do not keep employers from retaliating against whistleblowers, but give whistleblowers legal redress when they are retaliated against for their disclosures.

Whistleblowing describes making information about the public safety, about illegal activities, about commerce activities that have been misrepresented, and any public disclosure of private business information that a company would prefer to keep quiet. In many instances, an employee is expected by professional standards and the law of the nation and state to take action when public safety is threatened, or a law is being broken or people are being harmed. In these circumstances, regardless of workplace policy or nondisclosure agreements, it is the legal expectation of members of society that disclosure to the proper authorities should occur.

The challenges come when the employee tries to do the right thing, and the proper authorities are uninterested; when the workplace threatens both the employee and others in the workplace; when the employee tries to correct a dangerous or illegal situation and gets blackballed by peers or set up to take the blame by an employer. Unfortunately, these are all things that have happened to whistleblowers in the past. Further complicating matters is when the whistleblowing involves the government, and materials disclosed can be said to impact national security.

Assuming that the fate of the free world is not on the line, and the issue of concern is not one of immediate public danger, there are several considerations to be thought through before acting. Carefully study any nondisclosure agreements you signed when taking the job. If the state or local government is involved, there may be ways to report anonymously. If that option is available to you, consider taking it. If you went to the supervisors or law enforcement about a problem, and received no help, make sure those interactions are carefully documented.

There may be restrictions on your legal protection against retaliation if you do not follow the chain of command in reporting. For instance, if you find a workplace safety issue, and rather than reporting to the safety manager or the unit supervisor, went straight to the newspapers, you may not be protected from retaliation, and in some cases, may be held liable for damage to a company’s reputation. Either way, however you decide to proceed, document carefully any efforts you made to work through the system. If you have to remove company materials, or use company computer time to document the whistleblowing activities, the company can take action against you. If at all possible, do not remove any company property to bolster your claims.

After the storm breaks, and you have been publically identified as the source of the news, the workplace cannot retaliate against you by demotion, firing, or other job actions that are considered punitive. If they do, you have the option of filing a civil rights action against them. Each state has unique whistleblower laws, with mechanisms for reporting retaliation; federal contractors, military, and federal government agencies also have federal systems in place.

For more information on employment law, please contact us.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco has hammered out a settlement between the Lyft ridesharing company and 95,000 drivers who worked between May 25, 2012, and July 1, 2016, in California. The drivers had filed a class action lawsuit demanding that they be treated as employees of Lyft for the purpose of qualifying for benefits. Ride-sharing companies like Lyft treat their drivers as contractors, which makes benefits like health care insurance and paid vacation unavailable to them.

The settlement will not resolve the issue as to whether rideshare drivers should be employees or contractors. The question is considered too complex to be decided in the courts at the current time. The plaintiffs also made the judgment that the outcome of a trial would have been too uncertain to take the risk.

Instead, Lyft has agreed to pay the drivers in the class from a fund of $27 million, with the longest-serving contractors getting the most money. Also, the ride-sharing company agrees to warn its drivers before it cuts them off from the app for violations of terms of service. Lyftalso decided to allow a third party arbitrator to decide questions concerning pay when they arise.

Ride-sharing services have upended how many people who lack private automobiles get from place to place, providing an alternative to expensive taxis and often inconvenient mass-transit systems. Drivers for such companies are often part-timers, supplementing income from a full-time job or else making money when they are between jobs.

Uber, Lyft’s main rival in the ride-sharing business, is also involved in a class action involving the question of whether drivers should beemployees or contractors.

For more information contact us.