Photo: Uber
Uber has been conceded a preliminary approval for a settlement deal involving a misleading “gratuity” that was credited from 47,000 users.
The problem came after Uber riders were charged 20% of their fares for this “gratuity,” which was supposed to go to drivers as tips.
Unfortunately, drivers only received approximately half of the “gratuity,” while Uber pocketed the rest. Consumer lawyers filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc., which was settled in front of a District Court in San Francisco this week.
The settlement deal will involve Uber paying approximately $384,000 to the riders that have been charged the misleading fee. Meanwhile, the drivers will not receive the full tips they were expecting.
There is no news about drivers having to pay back the sums they received as tips, so we hope they will not be taken for a ride on the matter.
As Bloomberg notes, Uber has been rejected a settlement deal last month, which was a lawsuit filed by drivers that wanted to be treated as employees, and not independent contractors.
The difference between employee and IC would have brought significant expenses for the tech giant, which would have had to compensate drivers for expenditures and tips.
The representatives of the Uber drivers and the company have told a Federal Appeals Court that they have resumed settlement negotiations after the U.S. District Court refused the $100 million deal proposed by the business for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
These two lawsuits are not the first, and probably not the last for Uber. The American corporation that has become a ride-sharing giant has had some of its services banned in some countries and cities, while other parts of its business are permitted under certain conditions.
All of the problems above are caused by its business model, which considers drivers as “partners” instead of employees, but this does not suit legislative norms in all of the countries where the service is available.
The problem is that some countries have strict laws regarding who is allowed to transport people, and that the whole “partner” thing does not entirely comply with existing legislation, which has enraged taxi drivers and traditional transporters (i.e. hired car service companies).
Meanwhile, Uber insists it is a tech company, which only focuses on the meeting between a rider and a driver. However, it does not work that way everywhere, so the service was banned in some cities and countries because the drivers did not have the appropriate government approvals to be authorized transporters.
Unfortunately, drivers only received approximately half of the “gratuity,” while Uber pocketed the rest. Consumer lawyers filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc., which was settled in front of a District Court in San Francisco this week.
The settlement deal will involve Uber paying approximately $384,000 to the riders that have been charged the misleading fee. Meanwhile, the drivers will not receive the full tips they were expecting.
There is no news about drivers having to pay back the sums they received as tips, so we hope they will not be taken for a ride on the matter.
As Bloomberg notes, Uber has been rejected a settlement deal last month, which was a lawsuit filed by drivers that wanted to be treated as employees, and not independent contractors.
The difference between employee and IC would have brought significant expenses for the tech giant, which would have had to compensate drivers for expenditures and tips.
The representatives of the Uber drivers and the company have told a Federal Appeals Court that they have resumed settlement negotiations after the U.S. District Court refused the $100 million deal proposed by the business for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).
These two lawsuits are not the first, and probably not the last for Uber. The American corporation that has become a ride-sharing giant has had some of its services banned in some countries and cities, while other parts of its business are permitted under certain conditions.
All of the problems above are caused by its business model, which considers drivers as “partners” instead of employees, but this does not suit legislative norms in all of the countries where the service is available.
The problem is that some countries have strict laws regarding who is allowed to transport people, and that the whole “partner” thing does not entirely comply with existing legislation, which has enraged taxi drivers and traditional transporters (i.e. hired car service companies).
Meanwhile, Uber insists it is a tech company, which only focuses on the meeting between a rider and a driver. However, it does not work that way everywhere, so the service was banned in some cities and countries because the drivers did not have the appropriate government approvals to be authorized transporters.
Google News