The San Francisco city attorney on Thursday sued Uber Technologies Inc. over access to records about the ride-hailing company's drivers, escalating a conflict that the company said raises privacy issues.

The city Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office said it had periodically requested, since 2014, information from Uber about its drivers to investigate compliance with business and tax regulations. San Francisco's lawyers said Uber in December stopped providing the city with that information. Uber this month filed court papers to quash a subpoena from the city tax collector, arguing the demand for information was overbroad and that it violated drivers' privacy rights.

San Francisco's lawyers on Thursday called Uber's privacy argument a “complete red herring.” Uber's drivers—the company classifies them as independent contractors—should be required to comply with the same license requirements that broadly apply to other businesses, the city said.

“San Franciscans have a right to know who is behind the wheel when they're being driven somewhere,” Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, said in a statement. “Not surprisingly, Uber is thumbing its nose at the law. It's time for that to stop.”

San Francisco's petition asks a judge to force Uber to disclose the names and addresses of its drivers in San Francisco. Independent contractors, the city said, are required to get a business certificate if they operate more than seven days a year.

Wayne Ting, Uber's general manager in San Francisco, said in an email that the company doesn't dispute that its drivers, as independent contractors, must obtain business licenses.

“But the Tax Collector's office is asking us to give them personal information of drivers—including their home address—without their consent and will put that information on a public website,” Ting said.

The city has denied Uber's request to get drivers' consent first and to allow them to remove their public information from the website, Ting said.

Davis Wright Tremaine partner Allison Davis and counsel Sanjay Nangia represent Uber in the dispute in San Francisco Superior Court.

San Francisco's suit adds to litigation and public-relations headaches at Uber. The company is reportedly grappling with state and federal investigations over its use of technology called “Greyball” to evade regulators in cities where the ride-sharing service hadn't yet been approved. Uber's also fighting trade-secret theft claims—lodged by Waymo, Google's driverless car unit—that could upend the company's investment in autonomous vehicles.

Uber has long clashed with state and local regulators. The San Francisco-based company agreed in April 2016 to pay up to $25 million to settle allegations by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles that it overstated its safety measures. The California Public Utilities Commission last year fined Uber $7.6 million for failing to turn over driver and ride data to the agency.

Uber and Lyft Inc. are backing legislation—Senate Bill 182—that would block the public disclosure of any driver's local business license data. The bill also would allow an Uber or Lyft driver to obtain just one permit in the city where he or she lives, regardless of how many cities in which the driver operates.

The city and county of San Francisco oppose the bill, arguing that ride-hailing drivers should not be exempt from the same rules and public disclosures applied to other businesses.

“We are in this situation because Uber insists that its drivers are not its employees. Forcing drivers to become independent contractors means each is their own business,” Herrera said. “That's a consequence of Uber's drive to fatten its bottom line at the expense of the people doing the work.”

Related Articles:

|

The San Francisco city attorney on Thursday sued Uber Technologies Inc. over access to records about the ride-hailing company's drivers, escalating a conflict that the company said raises privacy issues.

The city Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office said it had periodically requested, since 2014, information from Uber about its drivers to investigate compliance with business and tax regulations. San Francisco's lawyers said Uber in December stopped providing the city with that information. Uber this month filed court papers to quash a subpoena from the city tax collector, arguing the demand for information was overbroad and that it violated drivers' privacy rights.

San Francisco's lawyers on Thursday called Uber's privacy argument a “complete red herring.” Uber's drivers—the company classifies them as independent contractors—should be required to comply with the same license requirements that broadly apply to other businesses, the city said.

“San Franciscans have a right to know who is behind the wheel when they're being driven somewhere,” Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney, said in a statement. “Not surprisingly, Uber is thumbing its nose at the law. It's time for that to stop.”

San Francisco's petition asks a judge to force Uber to disclose the names and addresses of its drivers in San Francisco. Independent contractors, the city said, are required to get a business certificate if they operate more than seven days a year.

Wayne Ting, Uber's general manager in San Francisco, said in an email that the company doesn't dispute that its drivers, as independent contractors, must obtain business licenses.

“But the Tax Collector's office is asking us to give them personal information of drivers—including their home address—without their consent and will put that information on a public website,” Ting said.

The city has denied Uber's request to get drivers' consent first and to allow them to remove their public information from the website, Ting said.

Davis Wright Tremaine partner Allison Davis and counsel Sanjay Nangia represent Uber in the dispute in San Francisco Superior Court.

San Francisco's suit adds to litigation and public-relations headaches at Uber. The company is reportedly grappling with state and federal investigations over its use of technology called “Greyball” to evade regulators in cities where the ride-sharing service hadn't yet been approved. Uber's also fighting trade-secret theft claims—lodged by Waymo, Google's driverless car unit—that could upend the company's investment in autonomous vehicles.

Uber has long clashed with state and local regulators. The San Francisco-based company agreed in April 2016 to pay up to $25 million to settle allegations by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles that it overstated its safety measures. The California Public Utilities Commission last year fined Uber $7.6 million for failing to turn over driver and ride data to the agency.

Uber and Lyft Inc. are backing legislation—Senate Bill 182—that would block the public disclosure of any driver's local business license data. The bill also would allow an Uber or Lyft driver to obtain just one permit in the city where he or she lives, regardless of how many cities in which the driver operates.

The city and county of San Francisco oppose the bill, arguing that ride-hailing drivers should not be exempt from the same rules and public disclosures applied to other businesses.

“We are in this situation because Uber insists that its drivers are not its employees. Forcing drivers to become independent contractors means each is their own business,” Herrera said. “That's a consequence of Uber's drive to fatten its bottom line at the expense of the people doing the work.”