San Francisco DA Denounces Uber Background Checks

Previously, it was discovered that 25 Uber drivers in Los Angeles and San Francisco had previous convictions including sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars, kidnappers, and a murder when they received citations by airport police.  On August 18, San Franciscan District Attorney George Gascón along with Jackie Lacey of the Los Angeles District Attorney Office filed a First Amended Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties, Restitution and Other Equitable Relief against Uber citing these 25 criminal arrests.

Click here to read the Amended Complaint: Amended Complaint against Uber

At least four Uber drivers who were ticketed by LAX Police have previous criminal convictions – which would bar them from operating a taxi in Los Angeles and San Francisco.  According to the LA Times, these Uber drivers who were cited for violations at the airport, had been previously convicted of child exploitation, identity theft, manslaughter, and driving under the influence.  One Uber driver was convicted on 14 counts of felony identity theft in 2012.  Another was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1998 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.  Although they would be rejecting from getting a taxi permit/medallion in other cities, these previously convicted felons can drive for Uber.

DA Gascón has stated that Uber’s background checks have “systematic failures”, and that the information presented by Uber to consumers “has been false and misleading”.  Gascón criticized Uber’s seven year background check, rather than the Live Scan screenings that taxi drivers need in San Francisco.

Click here to read the full article: DA: Major Flaws in Uber Background Checks Allow Criminal Driver 

A group of San Francisco taxi drivers, who have undergone police background checks, drive cars with meters that have regulated rates to prevent consumer gouging, have the statutorily required insurance to protect passengers as well as third parties in the event of an accident, and drive vehicles that have undergone periodic safety checks, all of which is required by law, are suing Uber on the basis it is a transportation company who has gained an unfair advantage by not complying with the law (e.g. not having insurance, not having the expense of inspecting and maintaining vehicles, or complying with other statutory requirements), and taken customers from the cabbies who are following the law.  (See San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC 12-526017)

If you would like more information on this case, please contact The Brandi Law Firm at tjb@brandilaw.com.

Trademark Notice

Uber is a registered trademark of Uber Technologies, Incorporated.  The use of this trademark is solely for product identification and informational purposes.  Uber Technologies, Incorporated is not affiliated with this website, and Uber Technologies, Incorporated has no affiliation with The Brandi Law Firm.  Nothing on this site has been authorized or approved by Uber Technologies, Incorporated.