Pa. Sues Uber Over Delayed Data Breach Disclosure
Ride-sharing giant Uber violated Pennsylvania's consumer protection law when it failed to promptly disclose that a data breach occurred in late 2016, and that mistake should cost the company at least $13.5 million, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro has claimed in a newly filed lawsuit.
March 05, 2018 at 04:09 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Uber car. Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM
Ride-sharing giant Uber violated Pennsylvania's consumer protection law when it failed to promptly disclose that a data breach occurred in late 2016, and that mistake should cost the company at least $13.5 million, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro has claimed in a newly filed lawsuit.
Shapiro filed a lawsuit Monday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Uber violated Pennsylvania's Breach of Personal Information Notification Act when it waited more than a year to announce that it had been hacked in November 2016. According to the complaint, at least 13,500 Pennsylvania Uber drivers had their driver's license information accessed as a part of the breach.
That lawsuit follows a handful of state actions and federal actions that have also been filed over the same breach.
Along with Washington state, Illinois and the city of Chicago, which are pursuing claims under state laws, about a dozen class action suits have been filed in federal court. The federal court plaintiffs are currently pushing to have their cases consolidated into a multidistrict litigation. Since Shapiro filed Pennsylvania's suit in state court, it makes it less likely the action will be consolidated into the federal litigation.
The litigation case stems from a breach where hackers accessed the driver's license information of about 600,000 Uber drivers. According to the complaint, Uber paid the hackers $100,000 to delete the data and keep quiet about the breach. It wasn't until a year later that the company announced that a breach had taken place.
In a Nov. 21 statement, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, who took over in August, insisted that more sensitive data like Social Security numbers, birth dates and credit card numbers hadn't been stolen. “None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it,” he said. “We are changing the way we do business, putting integrity at the core of every decision we make and working hard to earn the trust of our customers.”
Pennsylvania's lawsuit said Uber had been aware of the hack as early as Nov. 14, 2016, and should have notified the drivers soon after.
“Instead of notifying impacted consumers of the breach within a reasonable amount of time, Uber hid the incident for over a year—and actually paid the hackers to delete the data and stay quiet,” Shapiro said in a press statement. “That's just outrageous corporate misconduct, and I'm suing to hold them accountable and recover for Pennsylvanians.”
Violations of the Breach of Personal Information Notification Act, according to the complaint, are deemed to be violations of the state's consumer protection law, which penalizes defendants at $1,000 for each violation, or $3,000 for each violation involving a person 60 years old or older.
Uber's chief legal officer, Tony West, said in an emailed statement that, since taking over the job three months ago, he has spoken with several state and federal regulators, as well as Shapiro's team, about the breach.
“While I was surprised by Pennsylvania's complaint this morning, I look forward to continuing the dialogue we've started as Uber seeks to resolve this matter,” he said. “While we do not in any way minimize what occurred, it's crucial to note that the information compromised did not include any sensitive consumer information such as credit card numbers or Social Security numbers, which present a higher risk of harm than driver's license numbers. I've been up front about the fact that Uber expects to be held accountable; our only ask is that Uber be treated fairly and that any penalty reasonably fit the facts.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250