$5.7M Slated for Pa. in Uber Data Breach Settlement
Uber has agreed to pay a record $148 million in state and local penalties to settle allegations that the company intentionally concealed a major data breach in 2016 that exposed the personal information of 57 million people, with $5.7 million going to Pennsylvania, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro's office said.
October 25, 2018 at 04:20 PM
5 minute read
Commonwealth v. Uber Technologies
$5.7M Verdict
Date of Verdict: Sept. 26.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 180300004.
Type of Action: Data breach.
Injuries: Personal information exposed.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Timothy Murphy, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.
Defense Counsel: Stephen A. Loney, Hogan Lovells, Philadelphia.
Comment:
Uber has agreed to pay a record $148 million in state and local penalties to settle allegations that the company intentionally concealed a major data breach in 2016 that exposed the personal information of 57 million people, with $5.7 million going to Pennsylvania, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro's office said.
The settlement comes in the wake of a multistate investigation that found the ride-hailing company paid hackers $100,000 to conceal the breach, which exposed the names, email addresses, and cellphone numbers of those users.
Uber did not provide public notice of the breach until a year after it happened in late 2016.
The company's board of directors were in the dark about the ransom payment until it was discovered by a law firm last spring. The firm was hired to investigate the company's security team in a separate matter but stumbled on the breach during its inquiry. The board then hired a forensic firm to probe what happened with the breach.
Uber said in a November 2017 statement from CEO Dara Khosrowshahi that the breach was carried out by two hackers outside the company. The hackers accessed user data on a third-party, cloud-based service the company uses to store some information. They, however, were not able to download users' Social Security numbers, bank account information, credit card numbers, dates of birth and trip history, according to the company.
The hackers were able to collect the names, email addresses, and cellphone numbers of the 57 million people that use Uber and the driver's license numbers of about 600,000 drivers, according to the company.
Uber eventually provided notice of the breach after an investigation, but that wasn't until a year after the breach and ransom payment happened.
About $1.35 million of the $5.7 million Pennsylvania receives from the settlement will be distributed in $100 payments to the 13,500 Pennsylvania drivers affected by the breach, according to a press release by Shapiro's office.
The remaining $4.35 million of Pennsylvania's proceeds will go to the Attorney General's Public Protection Section and Bureau of Consumer Protection and, according to Shapiro's office, will “be used to conduct future investigations and outreach to protect Pennsylvanians from violations of consumer protection law.”
“The more personal information these criminals gain access to, the more vulnerable the person whose information was stolen becomes,” Shapiro said in the release. “That's why my Bureau of Consumer Protection took action, and it is why we are also continuing to lead an ongoing national investigation into the Equifax breach.”
Uber chief legal officer Tony West said in a statement on Wednesday that they are working to improve safety and security after the breach and have hired new experts to implement those improvements. He said the company learned from its mistake in 2016. “Our current management team's decision to disclose the incident was not only the right thing to do, it embodies the principles by which we are running our business today: transparency, integrity, and accountability,” West said. “An important component of living up to those principles means taking responsibility for past mistakes, learning from them, and moving forward.”
The company's notice in 2017 launched a nationwide investigation into its conduct in the wake of the breach. California is one of several states that independently investigated the breach before teaming up with other states on the probe.
The settlement is between Uber, all 50 states, and the District of Columbia.
Uber has also promised to develop a new policy on data security that will assess the potential risk of another breach and implement improvements beyond what's currently in place. The company is required to hire an outside contractor to examine its security efforts regularly and recommend improvements.
Uber will also have to take additional precautions to protect any user data it stores on third-party platforms, such as the one hackers accessed in 2016. If there is another breach, employees must also have an avenue to report any ethics concerns they have about other employees. Those employees will also now be subject to stricter password guidelines to gain access to the company's internal network.
The settlement does not resolve any liability that Uber may have to consumers, Becerra said. Uber is still litigating claims related to the breach in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in the Central District of California.
—Dan M. Clark, of the Law Weekly
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 AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readRule 126(b) Citations to Unpublished Opinions: Some of Us Still Don’t Get It
6 minute readProposed 'Bulk Sensitive Personal Data' Rule and the DOJ’s Comprehensive National Security Regulations
7 minute readThe Importance of Plaintiffs Not Letting Defendants Dictate Settlement Tax Strategies
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
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