Uber May Be Saving $500M a Year in California by Misclassifying Drivers, Suit Says
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of livery services by lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner, seeks an injunction barring Uber from pricing rides below cost and treble damages for Uber's allegedly anti-competitive activity.
September 11, 2018 at 05:16 PM
4 minute read
A new lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. claims that the company may save more than half a billion dollars each year by misclassifying drivers in California as contractors rather than employees.
The lawsuit, brought on behalf of Studio City-based livery service Diva Limousine Ltd., claims that Uber's “below-cost and anticompetitive pricing” has taken its toll on a proposed class of pre-arranged transportation companies in California and others across the country who have affiliate relationships with them.
“Each day that Uber misclassifies its primary workforce, it steals wages from drivers earning below a living wage and gains millions of dollars in unlawful cost savings. Uber uses these savings to price its services far below their cost,” wrote the plaintiffs lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner in Monday's 27-page complaint. “Predatory pricing strategies have been a feature, not a bug, of Uber's business model,” they wrote.
The suit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, brings claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, which allows a competitor who is injured by unfair business conduct to seek an injunction blocking the violation. The suit also brings claims under the state's Unfair Practices Act, which bars pricing services below cost unless a business can prove that such prices aren't aimed at harming competition and provides for treble damages for companies injured by such practices.
Uber representatives didn't respond to messages Tuesday morning.
The new suit claims that Uber fails to pay drivers for breaks as required under California law and shirks tax obligations, including the 6.2 percent employer Social Security tax, the 1.45 percent employer Medicare tax, and unemployment insurance contributions. “Uber has consistently lost money on Uber rides, and would lose even more if it bore the full costs of its vehicle fleet and labor force rather than illegally shifting them onto drivers,” the plaintiffs lawyers wrote.
In a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, Diva's lawyers at Robins Kaplan and Keller Lenkner claimed that under the new worker classification standard set out in April by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Uber drivers are clearly employees. They also noted that Diva, unlike Uber drivers themselves, aren't bound by contracts requiring them to arbitrate their disputes with the company.
“This, we think, is the first case that presents a clean opportunity to rule on whether Uber is misclassifying drivers or not,” said Keller Lenkner's Warren Postman.
Added Robins Kaplan's Michael Geibelson, “The creation of technology does not allow a company to avoid compliance with the law on issues like worker classification and predatory pricing.”
Keller Lenkner founder Ashley Keller said that he had previously worked with the Robins Kaplan team while at litigation finance firm Gerchen Keller Capital. Keller and partners Adam Gerchen and Travis Lenkner quietly launched their plaintiff-side, Chicago-based law firm a little more than a year after the $160 million sale of Gerchen Keller to publicly traded litigation finance outfit Burford Capital Ltd. in Dec. 2016.
Said Keller of the firms: “We both saw an opportunity to do right by the competitors who have been harmed by Uber's predatory pricing and misclassification of drivers.”
Read the complaint:
Read more:
Will California's New Worker Classification Test Be Applied Retroactively? One Judge Says Yes
Gig Companies, Fearing Litigation 'Onslaught,' Press Fight Over Labor Ruling
Calif. Supremes Embrace Worker-Friendly Classification Test. Why This Matters to Gig Companies
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
© 2025 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 AllBuchalter Hires Longtime Sheppard Mullin Real Estate Partner as Practice Chair
Reality TV Couple and Pacific Palisades Neighbors Sue City of Los Angeles Over Loss of Homes to Fire
3 minute readIn Resolved Lawsuit, Jim Walden Alleged 'Retaliatory' Silencing by X of His Personal Social Media Account
No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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