Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DAVID C. SHONKA Acting General Counsel KATHERINE WORTHMAN, DC Bar No. 488800 IOANA RUSU, DC Bar No. 1001603 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mailstop CC-10232 Washington, D.C. 20580 Phone: (202) 326-2929 (Worthman) Facsimile: (202) 326-3768 Email: kworthman@ftc.gov (Worthman); irusu@ftc.gov (Rusu) Colin Hector, CA Bar No. 281795 Federal Trade Commission 901 Market Street, Suite 570 San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 848-5100 Facsimile: (415) 848-5184 Attorneys for Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco Division 15 16 17 18 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Case No. ____________ Plaintiff, 19 20 21 COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 22 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”), for its Complaint alleges: 1. The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), to obtain temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive COMPLAINT Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 13 1 relief, rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement 2 of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief for Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of 3 Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with its false, misleading, or 4 unsubstantiated claims regarding driver earnings and its Vehicle Solutions Program. 5 6 7 8 9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b). 3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2), and (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). 10 11 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 4. Defendant markets its services throughout the United States, including throughout 12 the county of San Francisco. 13 14 PLAINTIFF 5. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government created by 15 statute. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 16 which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. 17 6. The FTC is authorized to initiate federal district court proceedings, by its own 18 attorneys, to enjoin violations of the FTC Act and to secure such equitable relief as may be 19 appropriate in each case, including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund 20 of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies. 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b) and 56(a)(2)(A). 21 22 DEFENDANT 7. Defendant Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware 23 corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant is a 24 mobile ride-hailing business and transacts or has transacted business in this district and 25 throughout the United States. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 2 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 13 1 2 COMMERCE 8. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant has maintained a substantial 3 course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 4 15 U.S.C. § 44. 5 UBER’S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 6 Overview 7 9. Uber distributes a mobile software application (the “App”) that connects 8 entrepreneurial consumers who are transportation providers (hereinafter “Uber Drivers” or 9 “Drivers”) with consumers seeking those services (hereinafter “passengers” or “customers”). 10 Uber recruits and approves consumers to become Uber Drivers, sets the rates that Drivers charge 11 for providing transportation, and collects a portion of the fares that Drivers charge for each ride. 12 To maximize its revenue, Uber must amass a sufficient supply of Drivers to meet passengers’ 13 transportation demands. 14 10. Since at least May 2014, to recruit consumers to drive for Uber, Uber has 15 disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements encouraging consumers to become 16 Uber Drivers on various websites, including but not limited to Craigslist.com and Uber’s own 17 website. In its advertisements, Uber claims that Uber Drivers can earn specific high hourly and 18 yearly earnings. Notwithstanding these representations, in many instances Drivers have not 19 earned the high earnings touted by Uber. 20 11. Since at least November 2013, to further recruit Drivers, the company has offered 21 an auto program, known as Uber’s “Vehicle Solutions Program,” which connects prospective 22 Drivers with auto companies to buy or lease a vehicle they can use to drive for Uber. Uber has 23 made numerous claims touting the low cost and unlimited mileage of its auto program, even 24 though Uber has had no basis with which to make these claims. Indeed, the company has had no 25 oversight of, nor has the company monitored, the terms and conditions of its Drivers’ auto 26 agreements through the Vehicle Solutions Program. Further, Drivers in Uber’s Vehicle 27 Solutions Program – which has connected Drivers with subprime auto companies and dealers – 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 3 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 13 1 have in many instances received worse than industry average rates, made payments for hundreds 2 of dollars more per month than advertised, and entered into leases imposing costs for mileage. 3 12. Uber’s earnings and auto claims have enticed numerous consumers to become 4 Uber Drivers and purchase or lease vehicles through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program. Based 5 on Uber’s representations, consumers have paid at least $1,000 to enter into leases or retail 6 installment contracts for new or used vehicles at higher costs and worse terms than those 7 advertised. When Uber’s promised earnings have not materialized, and Drivers have attempted 8 to cancel their auto agreements, they have incurred significant monetary harm. Uber has 9 collected significant revenues from its Drivers’ fares, including tens of millions of dollars from 10 Drivers participating in the Vehicle Solutions Program. Uber’s practices have caused its Drivers 11 to suffer millions of dollars of injury. 12 13 How Uber Works 13. Passengers book transportation services from an Uber Driver using a publicly 14 available version of the Uber App that can be downloaded to a smartphone. When a passenger 15 submits a transportation request through the Uber App, the request is transmitted to the nearest 16 available Driver signed into the App. Once a Driver has accepted a request, the App alerts the 17 customer of the Driver’s name and vehicle information and facilitates passenger pick-up. 18 Following completion of the trip, Uber bills the cost of the trip to the customer. Uber later remits 19 a portion of the amount it collects to the Driver, after deducting any fees that Uber collects. 20 14. Uber offers multiple transportation service options to its customers, including a 21 relatively lower cost option called “uberX” as well as higher cost options such as “UberSelect,” 22 “UberBlack,” and UberSUV.” The majority of Uber Drivers provide their own vehicles. 23 15. For each service option available, Uber has set minimum standards that its 24 Drivers’ vehicles must meet in order to qualify for use with Uber. These standards vary per 25 service option and city. For example, an uberX Driver in New York City must have a vehicle 26 that is model year 2010 or later and seats at least four passengers comfortably, while an 27 UberBlack Driver must have a 2010 or later luxury vehicle that seats at least six passengers 28 comfortably. In San Francisco, an uberX vehicle must be model year 2001 or later and also must COMPLAINT PAGE 4 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 13 1 seat four passengers comfortably, while an UberBlack vehicle must be model year 2010 or later 2 and a luxury sedan that seats six people comfortably. 3 16. Uber has classified its Drivers as independent contractors, not employees. 4 Drivers have paid all expenses associated with operating a car service, including using their own 5 cars and paying for all gas and tolls. 6 17. Uber has set the Drivers’ fares for each service option in each city based on 7 Uber’s own formula, calculated using either a per-mile rate or a per-minute rate on top of a base 8 fare. Uber charges a service fee for each trip, which Uber has calculated as a percentage of the 9 Drivers’ total fare for the trip, usually 20%. Prior to calculating its service fee, Uber also has 10 charged each Driver a one dollar “safe-rides” fee to cover the cost of screening Drivers and cars 11 for safety. Uber has deducted these fees from the amount remitted to the Driver each week. 12 13 Defendant’s Earnings Claims 18. To induce individuals to become Uber Drivers, Uber has advertised and marketed 14 the earning potential of its Drivers on Craigslist, its company website, and other advertising and 15 marketing media. Uber has publicized high annual and hourly earnings to entice consumers to 16 become Uber Drivers. However, once Drivers have begun to receive their paychecks, Drivers 17 have discovered their actual earnings were substantially less than Uber has claimed. 18 19. For example, from at least May 2014 until August 2015, Uber published a 19 statement from the CEO on its website titled, “An Uber Impact: 20,000 Jobs Created On The 20 Uber Platform Every Month.” In this post, Uber claimed that its uberX Drivers’ “median income 21 is more than $90,000/year/driver in New York and more than $74,000/year/driver in San 22 Francisco.” Multiple news sources disseminated this statement, including Businessinsider.com, 23 CNBC.com, Forbes.com, and Slate.com. In August 2015, Uber revised the CEO’s entry on its 24 website so that the post reads: “[T]he potential income a driver on uberX can make in a year is 25 more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco.” 26 20. Notwithstanding these representations, for at least the year preceding the CEO’s 27 statement (May 2013-May 2014), the median uberX Driver in New York City earned $29,000 28 less annually than Uber claimed and the median uberX Driver in San Francisco earned $21,000 COMPLAINT PAGE 5 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 13 1 less annually than Uber claimed in its website post when Drivers’ hours are standardized to a 40- 2 hour work week. Moreover, less than 10 percent of all Drivers in New York and San Francisco 3 have earned the stated income. 4 21. Uber has inflated its hourly Drivers’ earnings in job listings as well. For example, 5 from at least January 2015 through March 2015, Uber represented in Craigslist advertisements 6 that its Drivers make high hourly rates in cities across the country even when working flexible 7 and part-time hours. Specifically, Uber placed the following advertisements for Driver positions 8 in various markets: 9 a. “Make $16/hour” in Atlanta, GA; 10 b. “Make $16/hour” in Baltimore, MD; 11 c. “Make $25/hour” in Boston, MA; 12 d. “Make $21/hour” in Chicago, IL; 13 e. “Make $15/hour” in Dallas, TX; 14 f. “Make $20/hour” in Denver, CO; 15 g. “Make $17/hour” in Houston, TX; 16 h. “Make $20/hour” in Los Angeles, CA; 17 i. “Make $16/hour” in Miami, FL; 18 j. “Make $18/hour” in Minneapolis, MN; 19 k. “Make $21/hour” in New Jersey; 20 l. “Make $20/hour” in Orange County, CA; 21 m. “Make $25/hour” in Philadelphia, PA; 22 n. “Make $20/hour” in Phoenix, AZ; 23 o. “Make $20/hour” in San Diego, CA; 24 p. “Make $29/hour” in San Francisco, CA; and 25 q. 26 22. “Make $21/hour” in Washington, DC. As with its website post, Uber’s representations in these Craigslist advertisements 27 overstate Drivers’ earnings as higher than the median hourly earnings in these markets. For 28 example, Uber’s data on hourly earnings indicates that, in Boston, Minneapolis, and, COMPLAINT PAGE 6 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 13 1 Philadelphia, for the four weeks preceding January 5, 2015, for all Drivers in each of those cities, 2 fewer than 10% of Drivers averaged Uber’s promised hourly rate. In 14 additional cities, for all 3 Drivers in each of those cities, fewer than 30% of Drivers averaged Uber’s promised hourly rate: 4 5 Craigslist Advertisement Quoted Hourly Fare City 6 Percent of Drivers Averaging Quoted Hourly Fare 7 Atlanta $16 Fewer than 30% 8 Baltimore $16 Fewer than 20% 9 Boston $25 Fewer than 10% 10 Chicago $21 Fewer than 20% 11 Dallas $15 Fewer than 30% 12 Denver $20 Fewer than 20% 13 Houston $17 Fewer than 30% 14 Los Angeles $20 Fewer than 20% 15 Miami $16 Fewer than 50% 16 Minneapolis $18 Fewer than 10% 17 New Jersey $21 Fewer than 30% 18 Orange County $20 Fewer than 20% 19 Philadelphia $25 Fewer than 10% 20 Phoenix $20 Fewer than 30% 21 San Diego $20 Fewer than 20% 22 San Francisco $29 Fewer than 20% 23 Seattle $20 Fewer than 30% 24 Washington, D.C. $21 Fewer than 20% 25 26 23. During and after the time period Uber has made these unsubstantiated earnings 27 claims, in many markets, most Drivers have not made the claimed amount. In many instances, 28 Drivers have not made the promised amounts even when factoring in non-hourly earnings, such COMPLAINT PAGE 7 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 13 1 as payments for time-limited promotions and other incentives. These promotions and incentives 2 often have been contingent on working specific late-night hours, accepting a minimum 3 percentage of trip requests, completing a set number of trip requests within a limited time period, 4 driving in a certain geographic area, or fulfilling other requirements. 5 6 Defendant’s Vehicle Solutions Program 24. Since at least November 2013, Uber has induced consumers to become Uber 7 Drivers by touting its Vehicle Solutions Program through its marketing materials. Uber has 8 directed prospective and current Drivers interested in the program to specific auto companies, 9 and often to specific employees at auto dealerships. Uber has entered into contracts with three 10 subprime auto companies to offer auto deals to Uber Drivers as part of the program. Auto 11 payments are deducted automatically from Drivers’ total weekly fares, before any earnings are 12 remitted to the Uber Driver. 13 25. From November 2013 to April 2015, over 5,000 Drivers entered into deals with 14 one of the three auto companies through Uber’s program, with nearly all Drivers entering into 15 that company’s four-year “lease-to-own financing option” available only to Uber Drivers. To 16 participate in this program, Drivers are required to pay at least $1,000 for a down payment and 17 $1,000 for security deposit, which many Drivers have elected to distribute over the lease term. 18 26. The two other auto companies have financed vehicle sales for Uber Drivers 19 through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program exclusively using retail installment contracts. One 20 company participated in the program from November 2013 to May 2015, and the other company 21 participated from November 2013 until at least April 2016. Drivers first have entered into retail 22 installment contracts to purchase vehicles with the dealerships, and the dealerships have then 23 assigned or transferred the contracts to one of these two finance companies. Since November 24 2013, one company has funded over 1,500 financing contracts, and the other company has 25 funded over 400 financing contracts for Uber Drivers. 26 27 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 8 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 9 of 13 1 Defendant’s Auto Finance Representations 2 27. 3 Solutions Program. 4 28. Uber has made a number of claims about the terms and conditions of its Vehicle For example, Uber has disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements 5 touting the low cost of using its Vehicle Solutions Program to obtain a vehicle. For example, 6 Uber has stated that consumers could “own a car for as little as $20/day” ($140/week); or lease a 7 car with “payments as low as $17 per day” ($119/week), and “starting at $119/week,” with the 8 ability to purchase the vehicle for only $1 at the end of the lease period. Further, Uber has 9 claimed in marketing materials directed at prospective and current Drivers that it “connects 10 drivers with any kind of credit history to the best financing options available.” Uber has 11 described these “financing options” to include financing contracts as well as a “lease-to-own 12 financing option.” 13 29. Uber also has represented in its marketing material that Drivers opting to lease 14 cars through its Vehicle Solutions Program would have “unlimited miles.” 15 30. Uber has not had any basis for making these claims. Uber has not collected, 16 received, or monitored any Driver-specific data regarding the terms of its Vehicle Solutions 17 Program. Indeed, when Drivers have complained to Uber about the Program, Uber repeatedly 18 has responded with the following or a substantially similar note: 19 Please contact your lender to discuss your payments, accruals, or amounts owed[,] as 20 Uber does not keep track of this information. The lender indicates your weekly payment 21 and we assist the lender in deducting that payment. 22 31. Despite the claims that Drivers can make low weekly payments, the median 23 weekly payment for Uber Drivers who entered into a lease from late 2013 through at least April 24 2015 has been over $200, while the median weekly payment for Uber Drivers who opted to 25 purchase their vehicles through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program during the same time period 26 has been over $160. Further, information Uber had at the time it made the claims indicate that 27 the claims are false. Uber’s communications with at least one auto company have acknowledged 28 payment terms and conditions that are inconsistent with Uber’s promises to Drivers. COMPLAINT PAGE 9 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 10 of 13 1 32. And Drivers in Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program – which has connected Drivers 2 with subprime auto companies and dealers – have in many instances received worse interest rates 3 than industry averages, contrary to Uber’s promise to connect Drivers with any type of credit 4 history to the best financing available. Uber’s marketing material to dealers has acknowledged 5 that the lease-to-own option was a “one size fits all” product with an “implied APR of 19.5%,” 6 significantly higher than even the industry average interest rates for consumers with deep 7 subprime credit scores. Additionally, the average rate of the other auto deals for Uber Drivers 8 has been higher than the industry average for consumers with similar credit scores. Numerous 9 Drivers who have purchased cars through Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program have received 10 interest rates on their retail installment contracts that are more than double the industry average 11 rate for consumers with similar credit scores. 12 33. Further, despite Uber’s unlimited mileage claims, the leases imposed annual 13 mileage limits of 37,500 and 40,000. Specifically, Drivers’ leases have provided that Drivers 14 who elect to end the leases early, due to any reason including discovering that they are not 15 earning amounts promised by Uber or termination by Uber, and who surrender the car rather than 16 purchase it outright, are obligated to pay an excess mileage charge of $.20 per mile for any 17 mileage over the set limit. 18 19 VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT 34. Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 20 or practices in or affecting commerce.” Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material 21 fact constitute deceptive acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 22 COUNT I 23 24 Deceptive Income Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 35. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and 25 promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that 26 consumers in specific cities are likely to earn substantial income, including specific annual and 27 hourly amounts, as set forth in Paragraphs 19 and 21. 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 10 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 11 of 13 1 2 3 4 36. In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 35 are false, misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 37. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 35 of this Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 5 COUNT II 6 Deceptive Auto Finance Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 7 38. 8 In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that: 9 a. 10 weekly amount such as: “Starting at $119/week,” “For as little as $20/day,” and 11 “For as low as $17 per day;” 12 b. 13 financing or leasing options available. 14 39. consumers are likely to own or lease a vehicle for an inexpensive daily or Defendant connects Drivers with any kind of credit history to the best In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 38 are false, 15 misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 16 40. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 38 of this 17 Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 18 COUNT III 19 Deceptive Unlimited Mileage Claims in Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act 20 41. In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, and 21 promotion of its Driver positions, Defendant has represented, expressly or by implication, that 22 consumers would have “Unlimited Mileage” when leasing a vehicle through Defendant’s 23 Vehicle Solutions Program. 24 42. In many instances, the representations set forth in Paragraph 41 are false, 25 misleading, or were not substantiated at the time the representations were made. 26 43. Therefore, the making of the representations as set forth in Paragraph 41 of this 27 Complaint constitutes deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 11 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 12 of 13 1 2 CONSUMER INJURY 44. Consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial injury as a result 3 of Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act. In addition, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a 4 result of its unlawful acts or practices. Absent injunctive relief by this Court, Defendant is likely 5 to continue to injure consumers, reap unjust enrichment, and harm the public interest. 6 7 THIS COURT’S POWER TO GRANT RELIEF 43. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), empowers this Court to grant 8 injunctive and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate to halt and redress violations 9 of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. The Court, in the exercise of its equitable 10 jurisdiction, may award ancillary relief, including rescission or reformation of contracts, 11 restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, to prevent and 12 remedy any violation of any provision of law enforced by the FTC. 13 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff FTC, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, § 53(b), and the 15 Court’s own equitable powers, requests that the Court: 16 A. Enter such preliminary and ancillary relief as may be necessary to avert the 17 likelihood of consumer injury during the pendency of this action and to preserve the possibility 18 of effective final relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary and preliminary injunction, an 19 evidence preservation order, and expedited discovery; 20 B. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act by 21 Defendant; 22 C. Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers 23 resulting from Defendant’s violations of the FTC Act, including, but not limited to, rescission 24 and reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill25 gotten monies; 26 D. Award Plaintiff the costs of bringing this action, as well as such other and 27 additional relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper. 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 12 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 13 of 13 1 2 3 Dated: _____1/19/2017____________ 4 5 Respectfully submitted, David C. Shonka Acting General Counsel /s/Katherine Worthman Katherine Worthman (Phone: 202-326-2929) (E-mail: kworthman@ftc.gov) Ioana Rusu (Phone: 202-326-2077) (Email: irusu@ftc.gov) 6 7 8 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT PAGE 13 Case 3:17-cv-00261 Document 1-1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 1 JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Federal Trade Commission (b) Uber Technologies, Inc. County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) John Graubert, and Andrew Smith, Covington & Burling, One City Center, 850 Tenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001-4956, 202-662-5938 (Graubert) 202-662-5049 (Smith) Katherine Worthman and Ioana Rusu, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20580, 202-326-2929 (Worthman), 202-326-2077 (Rusu) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 2 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) IV. NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF 2 Removed from State Court 3 Remanded from Appellate Court and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF DEF Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State 4 4 Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State 5 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – 315 Airplane Product Product Liability Liability 367 Health Care/ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical Slander Personal Injury 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 340 Marine Injury Product 345 Marine Product Liability Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Product Liability 380 Other Personal Property Damage 360 Other Personal Injury 385 Property Damage 362 Personal Injury Product Liability Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 443 Housing/ Accommodations 530 General 535 Death Penalty 445 Amer. w/Disabilities– Employment Other: 540 Mandamus & Other 446 Amer. w/Disabilities– Other 550 Civil Rights 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee– Conditions of Confinement V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original Proceeding III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment Of Veteran’s Benefits 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise San Francisco, CA (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) BANKRUPTCY 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC § 881 690 Other 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC § 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS–Third Party 26 USC § 7609 IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application 465 Other Immigration Actions 4 Reinstated or Reopened 5 Transferred from Another District OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC § 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes 6 Multidistrict Litigation–Transfer (specify) 8 Multidistrict Litigation–Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 15 U.S.C. Sections 45(a), 53(b) Brief description of cause: Deceptive acts and practices in connection with the marketing of its transportation services and auto purchase and lease program DEMAND $ VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DATE: 01/19/2017 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: Yes No DOCKET NUMBER SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD: /s/ Katherine M. Worthman