Los Angeles, CA – The nonprofit Consumer Watchdog warned Uber users to start using Lyft after a blockbuster New York Times report. The report found Uber’s background check system let criminals convicted of crimes like child abuse, assault and stalking drive for Uber, as long as the conviction was more than seven years old. The report also found that the system has many gaps, often intentionally imposed, to allow for speed and to keep costs low. Lyft, by contrast, bans drivers convicted of violent felonies whenever they occur, according to the report.
Worse, the report found Uber knew its background check systems were deficient, but has failed to fix them. The article tells the stories of women sexually abused by felons allowed to driver Ubers, including a San Diego woman with epilepsy attacked in 2020 who used Uber specifically because it marketed its company’s safety.
Uber’s former chief marketing director pushed for better background checks, but the company decided against them to limit the time of review and due to costs. The former Uber executive, Jill Hazelbaker, described the decision not to do better reviews “indefensible.”
“Passengers cannot trust Uber to adequately screen its drivers,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, the nonprofit advocacy group. “They should use Lyft instead. This company has proven time and again it cannot be trusted. Uber puts its profits above the safety of its passengers and it doesn’t deserve our business.”
Consumer Watchdog has sponsored dozens of billboards across California warning the public about Uber’s failure to deal with rampant claims of sexual assault and misconduct.
A previous New York Times investigation published this summer found, “Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes on average.”
The investigation found that while the company has studied the problem, it has failed to act decisively to better train its drivers and install cameras in its vehicles because of business concerns that its drivers might be considered employees rather than independent contractors.
“Uber delayed or did not require its drivers to adopt some of the most promising programs, nor did it warn passengers about factors it linked to attacks, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees, internal documents and court records,” according to the report. “Uber’s decisions about safety came as it prioritized growing its user base, avoiding costly lawsuits and protecting its business model, which classifies drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, the records show.”
This year, Uber used its lobbying power to pressure the California legislature to limit its exposure for damage caused by uninsured motorists who hit its vehicles. The company has also filed a ballot measure to limit the legal rights of all car accident victims to get attorneys.
“Uber is a company that does not respect our social mores, ethical customs or the rule of law,” said Court. “Uber deserves to be exposed and does not deserve our money.”
