S.F. City Attorney Subpoenas Uber, Lyft on Driver Practices
San Francisco's city attorney on Monday stepped up his scrutiny of ride-hailing operations, issuing administrative subpoenas to Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. for records on driver practices and the services the companies offer to disabled riders.
June 05, 2017 at 02:24 PM
7 minute read
SACRAMENTO—San Francisco's city attorney on Monday stepped up his scrutiny of ride-hailing operations, issuing administrative subpoenas to Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. for records on driver practices and the services the companies offer to disabled riders.
Dennis Herrera also asked the Public Utilities Commission, the agency that oversees ride-hailing businesses in California, for data on how ride-hailing companies affect traffic, cyclist and pedestrian safety, pollution and parking.
The convenience of ride-hailing “evaporates when you're stuck in traffic behind a double-parked Uber or Lyft, or when you can't get a ride because the vehicle isn't accessible to someone with a disability or because the algorithm disfavors the neighborhood where you live,” Herrera said in a prepared statement. “The status quo is not working.”
A Lyft spokeswoman, Chelsea Harrison, said the company was reviewing the subpoena, which was delivered to the company's legal department. Harrison said nearly 30 percent of rides in San Francisco take place in “underserved neighborhoods” and 20 percent begin or end at a public transit station.
“Lyft has always been focused on improving transportation access for people across all cities in which we operate,” Harrison said.
Representatives of Uber and the PUC did not return messages seeking comment Monday.
Although Uber and Lyft have headquarters in San Francisco, city officials have not shied away from challenging the companies' business practices.
Uber has been a particular target. Last year, Uber agreed to pay up to $25 million to settle litigation brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles for making misleading claims about its driver background checks. (Lyft settled the suit in 2014 for $500,000.) Last month, Herrera sued Uber for refusing to provide information showing whether its drivers are complying with San Francisco's business and tax regulations. A hearing is scheduled for later this month in San Francisco Superior Court.
Nearly 45,000 vehicles drive in San Francisco under the Uber and Lyft logos, according to the city attorney's office.
The rise of ride-hailing companies has boosted concerns about congestion in major cities. New York transportation regulators are reportedly looking at that impact.
Ed Reiskin, director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said officials need the subpoenaed data to understand the effects that many drivers are having on the city.
“We are hearing a growing number of complaints from residents, businesses, and our own traffic enforcement staff and Muni operators about the behavior of these drivers and the congestion and pollution caused by the sheer volume of these vehicles on our city's streets,” Reiskin said in a prepared statement.
The Public Utilities Commission does collect data from Uber and Lyft on services they provide, such as how often a disabled rider can connect with an accessible vehicle and whether residents in some neighborhoods can find rides more easily than those living elsewhere. The agency fined Uber $7.6 million and held the company last year in contempt for failing to turn over that data by a PUC-set deadline.
The commission has not provided the public with the companies' information, despite San Francisco officials' “long-standing request that it do so,” Herrera said.
Related Articles:
|- San Francisco Sues Uber Over Access to Driver Information
- Who's Suing Uber Now?: Lyft Drivers
- Driverless Cars Give Insurers New Vehicle to Criticize California's Rates Law
- Uber Names Salle Yoo Chief Legal Officer, Creating GC Vacancy
SACRAMENTO—San Francisco's city attorney on Monday stepped up his scrutiny of ride-hailing operations, issuing administrative subpoenas to Lyft Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc. for records on driver practices and the services the companies offer to disabled riders.
Dennis Herrera also asked the Public Utilities Commission, the agency that oversees ride-hailing businesses in California, for data on how ride-hailing companies affect traffic, cyclist and pedestrian safety, pollution and parking.
The convenience of ride-hailing “evaporates when you're stuck in traffic behind a double-parked Uber or Lyft, or when you can't get a ride because the vehicle isn't accessible to someone with a disability or because the algorithm disfavors the neighborhood where you live,” Herrera said in a prepared statement. “The status quo is not working.”
A Lyft spokeswoman, Chelsea Harrison, said the company was reviewing the subpoena, which was delivered to the company's legal department. Harrison said nearly 30 percent of rides in San Francisco take place in “underserved neighborhoods” and 20 percent begin or end at a public transit station.
“Lyft has always been focused on improving transportation access for people across all cities in which we operate,” Harrison said.
Representatives of Uber and the PUC did not return messages seeking comment Monday.
Although Uber and Lyft have headquarters in San Francisco, city officials have not shied away from challenging the companies' business practices.
Uber has been a particular target. Last year, Uber agreed to pay up to $25 million to settle litigation brought by San Francisco and Los Angeles for making misleading claims about its driver background checks. (Lyft settled the suit in 2014 for $500,000.) Last month, Herrera sued Uber for refusing to provide information showing whether its drivers are complying with San Francisco's business and tax regulations. A hearing is scheduled for later this month in San Francisco Superior Court.
Nearly 45,000 vehicles drive in San Francisco under the Uber and Lyft logos, according to the city attorney's office.
The rise of ride-hailing companies has boosted concerns about congestion in major cities.
Ed Reiskin, director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said officials need the subpoenaed data to understand the effects that many drivers are having on the city.
“We are hearing a growing number of complaints from residents, businesses, and our own traffic enforcement staff and Muni operators about the behavior of these drivers and the congestion and pollution caused by the sheer volume of these vehicles on our city's streets,” Reiskin said in a prepared statement.
The Public Utilities Commission does collect data from Uber and Lyft on services they provide, such as how often a disabled rider can connect with an accessible vehicle and whether residents in some neighborhoods can find rides more easily than those living elsewhere. The agency fined Uber $7.6 million and held the company last year in contempt for failing to turn over that data by a PUC-set deadline.
The commission has not provided the public with the companies' information, despite San Francisco officials' “long-standing request that it do so,” Herrera said.
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 AllJustices, Unanimously, Extend Reach of Federal Age-Discrimination Law
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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