Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 58 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ll 12 13 JEANNE M. CHRISTENSEN ELIZABETH J. CHEN (To be admitted pro hac vice) WIGDORLLP 85 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10003 Tel.: (212) 25 7-6800 Fax: (212) 257-6845 jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com echen@,wigdorlaw.com JAMIE C. COUCHE (SBN 252001) ANDERSON & POOLE, P.C. 601 California Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel.: (415) 956-6413 Fax: (415) 956-6416 jcouche@,adplaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 18 JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of a proposed Class of sim;/arly-situated individuals, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT SEEKING INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. 21 22 23 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant. 24 25 26 Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, individually and on behalf of all others similar! situated individuals ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel Wigdor LLP an 27 28 Page 1of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Dec/arat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 2 of 58 Anderson & Poole, P.C., as and for their Class Action Complaint against Defendant Ube 2 Technologies, Inc. ("Uber," the "Company" or "Defendant"), hereby allege as follows: 3 I. 4 5 Uber's Message To Women: Our Profits Over Your Safety I. Uber will stop at no lengths to make a profit. 2. Since Uber launched in 2010, thousands of female passengers have endure 6 7 unlawful conduct by their Uber drivers including rape, sexual assault, physical violence an 8 gender-motivated harassment. 1 Recently, the number of reported sexual assaults and rapes o 9 female passengers by male Uber drivers has sky-rocketed. 10 11 3. On notice of the magnitude of the number of passengers who have experienced sexual harassment and gender-based violence, 2 Uber should have made drastic changes to th 12 13 14 15 16 way that it screens and monitors drivers, as well as advancing safety measures on its app and i vehicles, and disclosed the truth to consumers about its insurance coverage during rides. 4. Instead, over the last seven years, Uber has done everything possible to continu using low-cost, woefully inadequate background checks on drivers and has failed to monito 17 drivers for any violent or inappropriate conduct after they are hired. Nothing meaningful ha 18 19 20 21 been done to make rides safer for passengers - especially women. 5. This is no longer an issue of "rogue" drivers who act unlawfully. created a system for bad actors to gain access to vulnerable victims. Specifically, drivers hav 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although the Complaint refers to female passengers, inherent in the allegations is the fact that mal passengers also have experienced physical, sexual or other gender-motivated harassment at the hands of Ube1 drivers. Use of the phrases "female passengers" or "female passengers" is inclusive of all passengers that hav experienced the type of harm alleged herein. See Charlie Warzel & Johana Bhuiyan, Internal Data Offers Glimpse at Uber Sex Assault Complaints BUZZFEED, March 6, 2016, available at htt s://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/internal-data-offers-glim se-at uber-sex-assault-complaints. Page 2of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratmy Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 58 the means and opportunity to veer off route without detection, trap passengers inside thei 2 vehicles and commit physical and sexual violence without witnesses. 3 4 5 6. To skirt state and local regulatory scrutiny, Uber labels itself a "technolog platform" company rather than a "transportation" company. This self-serving guise has added t Uber's ability to avoid spending more money on driver screening both before and after hiring 6 7 and to avoid regulatory measures directed at safety during rides. 7. 8 9 10 Because of this lack of regulatory oversight, Uber understands that responsibilit for preventing harm against female passengers begins and ends with the Company itself. silent cowardice in the face of such responsibility speaks volumes. 11 8. No longer willing to wait for Uber to do something when it is clear that th 12 13 Company will take no action, Plaintiffs, victims of sexual violence, including rape and sexual 3 14 assault, at the hands of their Uber drivers bring this action on behalf of all female consumers i 15 the U.S. to force Uber to take immediate and substantive actions to reduce this senseles 16 violence. Each week, women continue to experience gender-motivated harassment at the hand 17 of the agents that Uber has tasked with the responsibility of transp011ing passengers safely fro 18 19 one destination to another. 20 21 22 9. Worse, these women paid money to Uber for what they were told was a "safi 10. Only through court intervention will Uber cease and desist from making worne ride." 23 pay the price for its shameful failure to act. 24 25 26 27 28 The tenns "passengers" and "consumers" are used interchangeably in the context of this Complaint. Page 3of58 Class Action Complaint for b?)unctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 4 of 58 II. 2 3 4 5 Thousands Of Women At Risk 11. Because of Uber's failure to prioritize the safety of female passengers, thousand of women are at risk of being trapped in a vehicle and subjected to sexual harm at the hands o an Uber driver who has a duty to ensure their safe transport. 12. The risk that drivers may subject vulnerable female passengers to sexual, physica 6 7 or gender-motivated harm is substantial. There is an inherent risk in getting into a car with 8 stranger, where a passenger has no idea whether the driver plans to bring her to her destination, i 9 the driver has a gun in the car, or if the driver will make demands beyond those of the agreed 10 1I upon payment in exchange for "safe" passage. 13. Uber drivers are free to veer off-route, park in secluded and remote places, Joe 12 13 car doors and engage in heinous violence as described by the Plaintiffs in this action 14 Alternatively, some Uber drivers have dropped female passengers off, only to follow them int 15 their homes and commit rape and other sexual assaults out of public view. Since a driver may b 16 technically "off app" in these situations, Uber disclaims all responsibility for a driver's conduct. 17 14. It is precisely this risk that forms the basis for laws across the U.S. that requir 18 19 20 21 22 23 drivers for private transportation carriers to be held to a higher "duty of care." Taxi drivers an black car drivers are under a non-delegable duty to transport passengers safely during a ride. 15. In California, for example, common carriers are required to use the highest car and vigilance of a "very cautious person," and do "all that human care, vigilance, and foresigh reasonably can do under the circumstances to avoid harm to passengers" when transportin 24 25 26 passengers for a fee. This is why state and local regulations require strict monitoring of criminal backgrounds of drivers working in the taxi and limousine business. This also is why many citie 27 28 Page 4of58 Class Action Complaint/or Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 5 of 58 1 2 3 4 require taxis to be equipped with tracking devices or dash cameras and audio devices to allow th monitoring of rides. 16. When Uber drivers perform transportation services on the app, they are agents o Uber and perform services that are no different from those performed by taxi drivers or black ca 5 drivers. The law requires that they adhere to a higher standard of care and that they must b 6 7 8 9 10 carefully scrutinized and monitored before they are tasked with the responsibility of caring fo the safety of passengers, especially women. 17. Despite the exponential increase m reported sexual harassment and assaults t Uber by the women who use its app, nothing has been done to decrease the apparent and know 11 risk of such incidents from taking place. To the contrary, Uber counts on female consumer usag 12 13 14 15 16 17 increasing, and targets marketing ads towards young women travelling alone, knowing that it profits come at the price of these women's vulnerabilities and personal safety. 18. Uber could take a number of various steps to reduce drastically harm to femal passengers. These safety measures include: a. Bar registered sex offenders or individuals with assault or rape convictions (no time limit) from becoming Uber drivers; b. Require all Uber drivers nationwide to undergo in-person screening interviews and vehicle examinations; c. Install tamper-proof video cameras in all Uber vehicles which immediately set off alarms if they are disabled or malfunction; d. Perform national criminal background checks of all drivers every six months; e. Voluntarily submit driver information to states that wish to conduct their own screening through state maintained criminal databases, such as in Maryland and Massachusetts; 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 5of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 6 of 58 f. Require drivers to inform Uber within 24 hours if they have been indicted or charged on any felony involving physical force, violence or weapons, including kidnapping, or misdemeanors involving physical or sexual conduct; g. Require drivers to inform Uber within 24 hours of physical restraining orders issued in domestic violence matters; h. Utilize Live Scan, a fingerprint-based background check for drivers administered through the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") databases for all current and prospective Uber drivers; I. Perform thorough character checks on prospective drivers that go beyond mere criminal background checks, such as by interacting with people who may personally know an applicant, in order to learn about the person's reputation and background; j. Make high resolution driver photos available for all consumers nationwide to view on their phones to guard against identity fraud; k. Disable sharing of driver profiles by associating each profile with a pai1icular phone, facial recognition software "fingerprint" and/or fingerprint, verified at the in-person screening interview; I. Engage professional, trained, third-party investigators to perform audits of all current driver employment applications and other required documentation to identify inaccurate, outdated or forged information; m. Require all Uber drivers nationwide to install GPS tracking systems in their cars (rather than simply relying on phones and apps, which can be turned on and off), which immediately trigger alarms if they are deactivated or malfunction; n. Disable child-lock features on passenger doors of Uber vehicles; 0. Include in-app panic buttons in the U.S.-based apps that send messages to Uber consumer support, local police, and a designated safety contact to quickly report an escalating 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 6of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 7 of 58 safety situation, such as aggressive driving, a possible abduction, or an assault; 2 p. Employ teams of experts dedicated to investigating complaints against Uber drivers of a violent or sexual nature; and q. Create a separate online form to report complaints of a violent or sexual nature against Uber drivers. 3 4 5 6 I 9. 7 These proposed safety measures are reasonable and necessary. Although som 8 measures were taken after a prior lawsuit seeking injunctive relief was filed, as detailed herein 9 Uber needs to address the substantial problems that remain. IO 20. 4 Had these measures been in place, thousands of women would have been spare II the pain and humiliation that they suffered at the hands of their Uber drivers. I2 I3 21. Uber's goal of dominating and controlling the ridehailing market at the expense o I4 consumer safety is a calculated decision made by senior executives that continues through th I5 present. I6 I7 22. Court orders are needed to force change that Uber should have taken voluntaril and long before many gender-motivated acts of violence were inflicted on female passenger I8 I9 20 across the U.S. Each day and week that passes without change is a guarantee by Uber of harm t untold numbers of women who use its app. 2I 22 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 23. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), because the proposed Class has more than I 00 members, the Class contains at leas 24 25 26 one member of diverse citizenship from Defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. 27 28 See Doe v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 3: 15-cv-424 (SI) (complaint filed N.D. Cal. January 29, 2015). Page 7 of58 Class Action Complaint/or injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 8 of 58 24. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant i 2 authorized to and conducts substantial business in California, generally, and in this Distric 3 specifically. Defendant has its headquarters in this District, and Defendant's policies, practice 4 and protocols relating to the issues in the case were made and acted upon within this District. 5 25. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(l), becaus 6 7 Defendant resides in this judicial district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)(2), because 8 substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District as Defendant' 9 policies and practices were made and acted upon within this District. IO II 26. To the extent there is any contractual or other impediment to pursuit of thes claims on a class action basis, Plaintiffs specifically allege, and will prove, if necessary, that an 12 13 14 bar to class action proceedings is unconscionable, unfair, against public policy, an unenforceable. 15 PARTIES 16 17 27. Jane Doe 1 is an adult woman who is a citizen of and resides in Miami, Florida. 28. Jane Doe 2 is an adult woman who is a citizen of and resides in Los Angeles 18 19 California. 29. 20 21 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103. 22 30. 23 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. operates in cities throughout the United States. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24 25 26 27 I. Uber Technologies, Inc. 31. Launched in San Francisco in June 2010, Uber calls itself a "transportatio network company." In the industry called "ridehailing," Uber connects drivers and members o 28 Page 8of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 9 of 58 the public through a downloadable smartphone application ("app") called "Uber." Consumer 2 who have downloaded the app use it to make a ride request. They are matched with an Ube 3 driver who picks them up and drives them to a destination. App users must pay for the rid 4 through the app with a credit card. Uber pays the driver a share of the fare collected, and retain 5 the remainder. Uber's sole source of revenue is from charges to passengers for rides taken. 6 32. 7 As detailed ;njra, Uber's business model requires an enormous pool of drivers i 8 order to provide rides to consumers quickly and efficiently. To accomplish this, Uber solicits an 9 retains thousands of non-professional drivers. 10 33. Uber expanded nationally by entering cities and ignoring long-standing legal an 11 regulatory authority for taxi and limousine services. Such laws exist for many of the safet 12 13 concerns raised by this lawsuit. By flouting safety regulations, and by hiring non-professiona 14 drivers, Uber dominated the vehicle-for-hire market in a fraction of the time it would have take1 15 had it entered the transportation market through traditional methods. 16 17 34. III. "Profits over safety" quickly became the operating model for Uber's expansion. Uber Drivers Are Transportation Agents for Uber 18 19 20 21 22 23 35. Uber is a common carrier and its drivers are agents that provide a service to Uber. 36. Uber provides rides to members of the public for a fee. Uber does this as a enterprise engaged in "selling rides" in the same way that a private taxi service sells rides. 37. When Uber agrees with a passenger via the app to carry out a contract o transportation, drivers are the individuals who pick up the passenger at a certain location an 24 25 transport the passenger to a certain location. The fact that Uber utilizes software to contract wit 26 consumers does not alter the essence of its business enterprise - namely, that of a transportatio 27 provider. 28 Page 9of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Dec/aratmy Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 10 of 58 38. 1 When drivers perform the transport, they are the legal "agents" of Uber. At al 2 times, Uber is the "principal" in the relationship. Use of an app to organize the ride does nothin 3 to alter the agent/principal relationship. 4 traditional method where consumers had to telephone a taxi company in order to arrange for thei In fact, the app is simply a modern version of th 5 ride. 6 7 39. Similarly, consumers can, and often do in large cities, use the app to order a 8 Uber when they are on the street. Using the app eliminates a person from raising their arm in 9 traditional street "hail" but, effectively, the Uber app is no different from hailing a taxi, but fo 10 the fact that the passenger has a credit card account on file with Uber and the monetar 11 transaction takes place via the app. 12 13 40. In sum, Uber's self-serving claim that it operates as a "technology" company an 14 not as a traditional taxi service, does nothing to disassociate the essence of its business service 15 as anything outside of a taxi service. 16 17 41. When drivers perform the transportation, they are acting at all times pursuant t Uber's control and serve to carry out the performance on behalf of Uber. In connection with this 18 19 20 21 22 all money is exchanged between passengers and Uber, and all agreements about th transportation service flow between passengers and Uber. 42. At no time do passengers personally contract with drivers for transport it exchange for a fee. Uber, not its drivers, is the sole decision-maker when it comes to pricing 23 rates, fares, or payments provided. 24 25 26 27 43. Passengers pay Uber; Uber pays drivers. 44. Because Uber is a transportation company that provides rides to the general publi for a fee, it is subject to the laws governing common carriers. 28 Page 10of58 Class Action Complaint/or Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 11 of 58 45. I 2 delegable duty to transport passengers safely. 3 4 When drivers carry out a contract of transportation for Uber, Uber is under a non 46. At all times, drivers, whether labeled "agents" or "employees" of Uber, also ar held to transport passengers according to a higher standard of care. 5 4 7. Uber, as a common carrier in California, is required to use the highest care and th 6 7 vigilance of a very cautious person. 48. 8 9 Furthermore, it must do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonabl can do under the circumstances to avoid harm to passengers. 10 49. In connection with this duty of care, Uber is required to, but does not, mak 11 policy decisions at all levels of Uber's management to ensure that the highest care is exercise 12 13 14 with respect to Uber's transportation of consumers. IV. Jane Doe 1 15 50. Jane Doe l is an adult woman who resides in Florida. 16 51. On the evening of October 14, 2016, Ms. Doe I and a female friend ordered a 17 Uber to travel from Ms. Doe l's home in South Miami to nearby Coral Gables, Florida. 18 19 20 21 22 23 52. Ms. Doe I had just recently downloaded the Uber app, and this was her first rid using Uber. 53. Ms. Doe 1 and her friend took an Uber ride to a restaurant in Coral Gables. During the evening, Ms. Doe I had two' drinks. Despite having consumed only two drinks, a some point, she began to feel sick and light-headed. Ms. Doe 1 's friend consumed alcoholi 24 25 drinks during the evening. 26 27 28 Page 11of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 12 of 58 54. In the early hours of October 15, 2016, Ms. Doe 1 and her friend were picked u 2 by Uber driver Nimer Abdallah ("Abdallah") to transport them from Coral Gables back to Ms 3 Doe l's home in South Miami. 4 5 55. This ride was ordered using the Uber app installed on Ms. Doe 1's iPhone, whic had the "Touch ID" unlock function enabled. 6 56. 7 8 been charged with a felony in Miami, Florida. 9 10 11 Unbeknownst to Ms. Doe 1 when she got into the car, Abdallah had previous! 57. Ms. Doe 1 has limited recollection, if any, of the 20-minute ride. When Abdallah arrived at their destination, Ms. Doe 1 was barely conscious. Although Ms. Doe l's friend di not ask for help, Abdallah threw Ms. Doe 1 over his shoulder and carried her upstairs to her sixtl 12 13 14 floor apartment. bedroom. 15 16 17 Abdallah proceeded to enter the apartment and carried Ms. Doe 1 into he 58. Ms. Doe l's friend saw Abdallah sprawled on top of Ms. Doe 1 on her bed kissing her. When the friend demanded that Abdallah leave the apartment, his only response wa to invite her to join them on Ms. Doe I's bed. Her friend became so frightened that she locke 18 19 20 herself in the bathroom of the apartment, terrified. She passed out in the bathroom for the rest o the night. 21 22 59. When Ms. Doe I woke the next morning, she was alarmed to discover that sh was not wearing pants or underwear, and was lying in a horizontal position across the foot of he 23 bed. 24 25 26 60. Ms. Doe I was further distressed to find discharge from her vaginal area and wha appeared to be semen stains on her comforter, close to where she had been lying. 27 28 Page 12of58 Class Action Complaint/or Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 13 of 58 61. 2 carried her into the bedroom, Ms. Doe 1 became concerned that she had been sexually assaulted. 3 4 5 Upon learning from her friend that Abdallah had entered the apartment an 62. She searched, unsuccessfully, for any trace of a used condom. 63. Ms. Doe 1 reported the incident to the police, who took her statement, a copy o her Uber receipt, clothing and the bedding with suspicious staining, as well as surveillanc 6 7 8 footage from her apartment complex showing Abdallah dragging Ms. Doe 1 from his car and carrying her into the apartment building. 9 10 64. On or about October 17, 2016, as part of an official police photo line-up, Ms. Do l's friend successfully identified Abdallah as their Uber driver. 11 65. That same day, Ms. Doe 1 was treated at a rape treatment center at a local 12 13 14 hospital, where a rape kit and examination was performed, and samples were collected for ST and toxicology tests. 15 16 66. On or about October 18, 2016, Abdallah was arrested and charged with tw counts of Sexual Battery. 17 67. During police questioning, Abdallah admitted to removing Ms. Doe l's pants an 18 19 20 21 22 underwear, kissing her breasts, digitally penetrating her vagina, and inserting his penis into he1 vagina. 68. Abdallah furthermore confessed to the police that "he was wrong for what h did," and according to the police report admitted that he was aware that the victim had bee 23 drinking before he assaulted her. 24 25 26 69. The case is pending in the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 70. Abdallah subsequently posted bond and has been released. 27 28 Page 13of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 14 of 58 71. 2 would be "taking the appropriate action here." 3 4 Ms. Doe 1 contacted Uber regarding the incident, and she was informed that Ube 72. To this day, Uber has not confirmed that Abdallah has been deactivated fro driving for Uber. 5 73. Uber did, however, offer to refund Ms. Doe 1 $9.51 for her ride with Abdallah. 6 7 v. Jane Doe 2 8 74. Jane Doe 2 is an adult woman who resides in Los Angeles, California. 9 75. On the evening of January 18, 2017, Ms. Doe 2 was with friends at a restaurant i 10 11 Silver Lake, California. 76. Although she only had a few alcoholic beverages, she became intoxicated ver 12 13 quickly. 14 77. The group returned to one person's home. 15 78. Later, Ms. Doe 2 requested an Uber from the app on her phone to take he 16 17 approximately two miles to her residence. 79. She was picked up by an Uber driver, Miguel Last Name Unknown ("Miguel 18 19 LNU"). 20 80. Ms. Doe 2 sat in the backseat and proceeded to fall asleep. 21 81. When she awakened, to her horror, Ms. Doe 2 saw that Miguel LNU was in th 22 23 backseat and his mouth was on her vulva. 82. Ms. Doe 2 was able to see that the car was parked in a park and that it was rainin 24 25 26 27 heavily. The driver then proceeded to Ms. Doe 2's residence, and followed her into her home. 83. A.Jthough she was in and out of consciousness, Miguel LNU forced her to engag in intercourse against her will and then left. Ms. Doe 2 passed out. 28 Page 14of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe /, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 15 of 58 84. 2 phone numbers, leaving messages that he wanted to see her. 3 4 A few hours later, Miguel LNU began texting and calling Ms. Doe from variou 85. Ms. Doe 2 does not know how Miguel LNU obtained her phone number, as Ube purportedly uses a cell phone number masking system for drivers and passengers to contact eac 5 other. 6 7 8 9 The following morning Ms. Doe 2 woke up disoriented and confused. 87. Ms. Doe 2 found a used condom in her toilet and as a result, went to a medical clinic for STD testing. 10 1I 86. 88. What happened to Ms. Does 1 and 2 is happening to women across the U.S. Shockingly, it is happening with greater frequency. Upon information and belief, more tha 12 13 I 000 passengers have experienced rapes, sexual assaults and gender-motivated harassment b 14 their Uber drivers. 15 89. 16 Hundreds of incidents of such violence have been reported in the last several years such that it is impossible to set forth each reported attack by an Uber driver against 17 female passenger in this Complaint. 5 18 19 20 VI. #MeToo Campaign 90. Several weeks ago, m response to well-publicized charges by women 21 Harvey Weinstein and his film company, The Weinstein Company, a campaign on Twitter usin 22 the hashtag "#MeToo" began circulating. 23 The movement was intended as a means for individuals to share stories about sexual harassment and its prevalence for women in all walks o 24 25 life, in a multitude of contexts. 26 27 28 See http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents#sexualassaults. This frequently updated sit provides a list of sexual assaults and harassment by drivers for Uber and Lyft. As of November 13, 2017, more tha 330 incidents are set forth on the site specific to sexual assaults and harassment. During an approximate 12-wee period in 2017, the site reported that 92 individual incidents of sexual assaults were reported in the media. Page 15of58 Class Action Complaint/or Injunctive and Dec/arat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe/, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 16 of 58 91. The #MeToo campaign has resulted in thousands of individuals sharing storie 2 about sexual assault, including rape, and other gender-motivated harassment. In weeks, as 3 direct result of shared information on #MeToo, a number of influential and powerful men hav 4 5 been outed for ciaims of sexual misconduct. 92. Hundreds, if not thousands, of #MeToo tweets report sexual assaults, includin 6 7 8 9 10 rapes, and other gender-motivated harassment, experienced by female passengers at the hands o their Uber drivers, detailing incidents from several years ago through the present. 93. Indeed, the sheer volume of reports makes it impossible to list each tweet herein By way of example only, all of the following tweets were posted in October 2017: 11 12 • "I was tired & snoozed off in an @Uber. I woke up in fear . The car was parked in an alley. The driver was in the backseat next to me. #MeToo." • "Hey @Uber think your driver could take the title of dirty video he was watching before he picked me up off his screen during a ride? #MeToo." (the screen shot showed a video about "big titties." On the Uber driver's dash). • "A few years ago, I was in an Uber arriving at my apartment when the driver made inappropriate comments and grabbed at my crotch. #MeToo." • "This @Uber driver today pulled out his Man part (one eyed snake) and thought I didn't see him so upset here's the video #MeToo." (Las Vegas). • "Client sexually assaulted, harassed and threatened by Chicago Uber driver." • "When a 50-year-old male Uber driver rubbed my leg and tell me its 'sexy' when I was in a black dress on the way to my hostess job." • "One of my more recent #MeToo stories was when my @Uber driver started calling and texting me after my ride. I blocked him. Horrified." 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 16of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 17 of 58 94. 1 New reports by female passengers about Uber passengers emerge daily 2 Importantly, these women are located in cities across the U.S. 3 VII. 4 5 Terrorist Attack in Manhattan on October 31, 2017 95. On the afternoon of October 31, 2017, in lower Manhattan, a 29-year-old ma driving a rental truck intentionally drove into a crowded pedestrian and cyclist path, killing eigh 6 7 8 9 10 11 people, and seriously injuring more than eleven others. 96. That day, the New York Police Department apprehended the person believed t have committed the heinous killings, and identified the arrested driver as Sayfullo Saipov. 97. Shortly after Mr. Saipov's arrest, Uber released a public statement disclosing tha Mr. Saipov was a driver for Uber on October 31, 2017. According to Uber, Mr. Saipov passe 12 13 Uber's background check to become an Uber driver and had been actively driving on the Ube 14 app for more than six months. Upon information and belief, Mr. Saipov drove for Uber in a 15 least two states: Florida and New Jersey. 16 17 98. On October 31, 2017, Uber said that it had banned Mr. Saipov from the app. 99. Uber claimed that it was assisting law enforcement and said it was "horrified b 18 19 20 this senseless act of vio Jenee." l 00. Incredulously, for the last six years, Uber has issued the same public statemen 21 each time a report of violence surfaces in the media, including after a driver in Kalamazoo 22 Michigan went on a shooting spree while on the Uber app and shot at and murdered individual 23 in the process of picking up passengers. 24 25 I 01. Despite Uber's purported "horror," it has failed to change. 26 27 28 Page 17of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe /, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 18 of 58 VIII. 2 Inadequate and Careless Background Checking Process: Wilful Blindness in Hiring and Supervising Drivers 102. Uber, from the highest executive levels, including directors, officers, 3 4 managing agents, makes an intentional decision to look the other way when hiring 5 supervising drivers. As a calculated cost-cutting device, Uber uses a procedure to review 6 potential driver's background that is inherently flawed. Specifically, the background checkin 7 methods used by Uber cannot assure passengers that the driver behind the wheel does not have 8 history of violence or other background information that would cause a reasonable company t 9 10 make fmiher inquiries into a potential driver's history. 103. I1 To become a driver for Uber, individuals apply through Uber's website. Th 12 application process is entirely online and involves filling out a few short forms and uploadin 13 photos of a driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Drivers need not sho 14 that they own the vehicle that will be used to transport rides. 15 104. 16 At no point does Uber verify that the person applying to be the driver is uploadin 17 his or her own personal documents, including his or her own profile photo which can be used t 18 verify the accountholder. As a result, numerous drivers have registered to drive on the Uber ap 19 by using falsified identities, false social security numbers, false driver's licenses and fals 20 photos. 21 22 l 05. In September 2016, Uber announced the introduction of "Real-Time ID Check" 23 new security feature where drivers are periodically prompted to take a photo of themselves usin 24 their app (a "selfie") as a condition of accepting and continuing ride requests. 25 26 106. Facial recognition technology is used to analyze the selfie and verify that th driver using the app at that time is the same person whose photo is registered on file. 27 28 Page 18of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe /, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 19 of 58 107. Uber states that if the facial recognition technology does not match the selfie t 2 the profile picture on the driver's Uber account, the account will be suspended pendin 3 investigation. 4 5 108. However, the Real-Time ID Check feature does not prevent a driver from settin up an account using someone else's identity, but uploading their own photo, which would the 6 7 8 9 10 11 bypass the sporadic selfie check. I 09. In addition, it has been reported that hackers have been able to bypass facial recognition software by using composites of images from sources with resolutions as low a those available on Facebook or other social media websites. 110. Until as recently as 2015, Uber used Accurate Background, Inc. ("Accurate"), 12 13 14 formerly known as Hirease, LLC ("Hirease"), a private background check company. 1 11. Accurate does not perform stringent background checks. Drivers 15 required to submit fingerprints for comparison against Department of Justice and FBI databases 16 Rather, Accurate simply ran potential drivers' social security numbers through records database 17 similar to those held by credit agencies, which only go back for a period of seven years and d 18 19 20 21 22 not capture all arrests and/or convictions. 112. As such, if a potential driver was convicted of a violent crime ten years prior t applying to become an Uber driver, the Company would have no way of knowing such a fact 113. Uber simply looks the other way when it comes to any acts that may hav 23 occurred beyond the arbitrary seven-year cut-off. 24 25 114. Moreover, through these procedures, Uber fails to conduct a seven-year review o 26 any information for drivers who have resided in the U.S. for less than that time. Uber simpl 27 ignores any period beyond what records it can obtain in the U.S. By way of example only, if a 28 Page 19of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 20 of 58 Uber driver moves to a city in the U.S. from another country, such as Canada, the Unite 2 Kingdom or France, and has resided here for only a few years, the only records reviewed b 3 Uber pertain to records available in the U.S. No steps are taken to inquire about the potential 4 5 driver's history from his or her former country. 115. Indeed, if a potential driver knows that he will be unable to pass even the lenien 6 7 8 9 10 11 existing background checks, that potential driver could simply ask a friend to share thei information and thus gain access to driving on the platform. 116. Shockingly, Uber fails to implement stricter background checks for its potentia drivers to whom Uber passengers will later entrust their lives and well-being, despite knowin that job applicants frequently submit false information to their employers, especially online. I 12 13 fact, on its website at the time, Hirease acknowledged that many job applicants lie abou 14 information they submit to an employer, and that "40% of resumes contain material lies o 15 omissions about education, past employment or qualifications." 16 17 117. Hirease also has recognized the importance of background checks to weed ou applicants with criminal backgrounds. As Hirease stated, "10% of job applicants have a crimina 18 19 20 21 22 23 record." Nonetheless, Uber does not require fingerprint background checks for its applicants which would turn up a person's criminal history beyond the seven-year period. 118. Moreover, if a driver commits a crime and is convicted of it after Accurate ran it initial background check, Uber will not be notified. 119. Upon information and belief, beginning in 2015, Uber has started using Checkr 24 25 26 Inc. ("Checkr") to conduct background checks. Unfortunately, Checkr operates in substantiall the same manner as Hirease and Accurate. 27 28 Page 20of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 21 of 58 IX. 2 Uber's Deficient Background Checks Exposed by Massachusetts and Maryland Regulators 120. The faulty and defective quality of Uber's screening of drivers' histories wa 3 4 recently exposed by the state of Massachusetts and Maryland. 5 A. Massachusetts Exposes More Than 8000 Drivers with Criminal Histories 6 121. In January 2017, pursuant to an agreement between Uber, Lyft (a ridehailing ap 7 8 similar to Uber) and the State of Massachusetts, Uber and Lyft drivers were subjected to state run background checks. Notably, this additional screening was intended for drivers that ha 9 10 passed Uber's background test already. 122. 11 12 13 According to media reports, approximately 70, 789 Uber and Lyft drivers applie to the newly formed Transportation Network Division for a Massachusetts state license and thu had background checks run on them. 14 123. In April 2017, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities announced tha 15 16 17 more than 8,000 Uber and Lyft drivers failed the state screening even though these driver already had passed background checks at Uber and Lyft. 18 19 20 124. Alarmingly, the state rejected 8,206 of the drivers. Among those rejected, it wa reported that 1,599 drivers were found to have a history of violent crime, and incredibly, Ube and Lyft background checks had failed to identify 51 registered sex offenders. 21 22 23 B. Maryland Exposes Uber's Deficient Background Screening 125. In December 2016, the Maryland Public Service Commission ("Maryland PSC" 24 approved alternative background checks for Uber and Lyft drivers after both companies claime 25 that their background screening processes were more comprehensive than fingerprint-base 26 checks. 27 28 Page 21of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 22 of 58 126. Maryland PSC's more stringent requirements included an annual backgroun 2 check for each driver; a requirement that a Transp01iation Network Company (any company tha 3 provides a ridehailing service similar to Uber and Lyft) must provide written confirmation tha 4 they have verified the identity of the driver; and extending the background check to th 5 applicant's entire adult life, oin be ond the seven ears that Uber's commercial back roun 6 7 checks currently review. 127. 8 Figures released by Maryland PSC in April 2017 show that since implementin 9 the state's expanded background checks of 70,991 Uber applicants, 4,310 applications wer IO rejected, for reasons that include criminal convictions. l1 Upon information and belief, thes criminal convictions were not caught by Uber's "more comprehensive" background checks. 12 128. 13 Shockingly, in October 2017, Maryland PSC reported that in the last six months 14 nearly 15% of new ridehailing drivers in Maryland were cast out and banned from driving i 15 Maryland as a result of the state's own screening of drivers, even though these drivers had passed 16 the background checks of Uber and Lyft. Importantly, Maryland PSC reported that in 95% of th 17 cases where drivers were rejected, the individuals were drivers for Uber. Maryland PSC state 18 19 20 21 22 23 that at least 460 drivers were banned because of "disqualifying criminal histories." x. "We do the right thing. Period." 129. As part of recent leadership changes, Uber's new Chief Executive Office introduced changes to the Company's defined cultural values. One of the new goals is "We d the right thing. Period." 24 25 26 130. Because Uber knowingly has worked to silence passenger complaints about drive conduct and done everything possible to contain negative information, drastic changes ar 27 28 Page 22of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 23 of 58 needed before Uber can assert that it is doing "the right thing." To begin, Uber must engage i 2 transparency and release such basic information as the following: 3 • In the last year, how many reports from passengers does Uber receive about alleged rapes, sexual assaults and gender-motivated harassment inflicted by Uber drivers? • What does Uber do with these reports and what protocols exist for accurately and quickly assessing the veracity of the complaints? • How many internal investigations were conducted in the last six to twelve months about alleged rapes, sexual assaults, and gender-motivated harassment as a result of passenger complaints? • In the last year, for example, what changes, if any, has Uber implemented as a direct result of internal investigations? • What systemic protocols are currently under evaluation in order to increase passenger safety? • Why does Uber represent to consumers that individuals can assess the risks associated with taking rides with drivers who are not professionally licensed, when Uber fails to disclose the data necessary for consumers to make such determinations? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 131 . As part of its business model, Uber has opted to protect the brand at the expens 19 of passengers' safety. For any meaningful change to occur, Uber must be transparent about dat 20 21 22 23 24 regarding reported violence by drivers. 132. Uber's history of silence about such information has not gone unnoticed. Recently, a San Francisco judge sanctioned Uber for the Company's failure to comply with search warrant for records on a driver suspected of sexually battering a female passenger. Th 25 judge stated: 26 27 28 Page 23of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 24 of 58 "The reputation of Uber for cooperating with law enforcement is horrific. The fact that Uber resists search warrants gives me grave concern that there is an ulterior motive here and not any desire to cooperate." 2 3 133. 4 The case involved charges against a 42-year-old Uber driver, Leonid Beke 5 ("Beker"), for an attack on a female passenger in May 2017. According to the charges, Beke 6 stopped the car, got in the back seat and restrained and attacked his female victim. The attac 7 went on for more than ten minutes before Beker stopped. Uber argued that it should not have t 8 turn over even 90 days of Beker's driving records because while it was "very committed t 9 10 safety," providing Beker's driving records might cause law enforcement to "call passengers an 11 ask if they'd had a bad experience with an Uber driver." Senselessly, Uber said it should no 12 have to turn over records for rides with two to five stars because it was "unlikely a sexual assaul 13 victim would give a good review." Without any rational basis, Uber said that records for ride 14 involving male passengers were not relevant. 15 134. 16 If Uber was sincere about doing "the right thing," it would not be resisting cou 17 orders for the production of information on file about drivers charged with rape, sexual assault o 18 gender-motivated harassment. 19 20 Material Misrepresentations to Passengers that Uber Provides the "Safest Rides on the Road" 21 135. 22 23 XI. The application process to become an Uber driver is simple, fast and designed t allow the Company to hire as many drivers as possible while incurring minimal associated costs Such cost saving, however, is at the expense of passengers, especially female passengers. 24 25 136. Indeed, in a complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Francisco and th 26 District Attorney of Los Angeles, The People of the State of California v. Uber Technologies, 27 Inc., Case No. 14-cv-543120-CGC (Superior Court of the State of California, filed August 18 28 Page 24of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Dec/arat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 25 of 58 2015), it was alleged that Uber's security screening is so deficient that, upon information an 2 belief, individuals passed Uber's screening process and were found driving for Uber with th 3 following felony convictions: (1) second degree murder; (2) lewd and lascivious acts against 4 5 child under the age of 14; (3) sexual exploitation of children; (4) kidnapping for ransom with firearm; (5) assault with a firearm; (6) grand theft; (7) robbery; (8) identity theft; (9) burglary· 6 7 and (10) taking a vehicle without consent. In addition, a number of Uber drivers, upo 8 information and belief, have previously been convicted of driving under the influence an 9 driving with a suspended license and yet still passed Uber's purportedly strict backgroun 10 I1 checks. 13 7. Rather than notify passengers of these failures, Uber fills its website with picture 12 13 of smiling young women entering and exiting vehicles, which are meant to appear "safe." 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 25 of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 26 of 58 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 26of58 Class Action Comp!aintfor Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe !, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 27 of 58 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 138. In fact, Uber has misrepresented to consumers, on a global scale, on its website. 19 the following: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Wherever you are around the world, Uber is committed to connecting you to the safest ride on the road. That means setting the strictest safety standards possible, and then working hard to improve them every day. The specifics vary depending on what local governments allow, but within each city we operate, we aim to go above and beyond local requirements to ensure your comfort and security - what we are doing in the US is an example of our standards around the world. (emphasis added). 27 28 Page 27of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratmy Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 28 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 139. Today, Uber continues to declare that it is "dedicated to keeping people safe o the road. Our technology enables us to focus on rider safety before, during, and after every trip." 140. Until October 2014, Uber represented on its site that "Every ridesharing an livery driver is thoroughly screened through a rigorous process we've developed using industry leading standards. This includes a three step criminal background screening for the U.S. - with 6 7 8 9 10 1l county, federal and multi-state checks that go back as far as the law allows - and ongoin reviews of drivers' motor vehicle records throughout their time on Uber." I 41. However, because Uber disclaims day-to-day supervision of its drivers, it canno be aware of how often drivers pick up passengers while the drivers themselves are intoxicated o under the influence of other drugs. This is problematic for many obvious reasons, not leas 12 13 because Uber drivers can convey a passenger to a destination, stop for a few drinks and/or som 14 illicit substances, and then turn the app back on and continue driving, putting the passenger i 15 unnecessary danger. 16 142. 17 In fact, upon information and belief, nothing stands in the way of an Uber driver looking to earn as much as possible, from keeping his app signed in and accepting rides for a 24 18 19 20 hour shift, which would also be incredibly dangerous to passengers. 143. Although Uber attempts to distance itself from situations m which it woul 21 potentially incur liability, a consumer would need to sift through pages of text and click throug 22 multiple links in order to even find the following section in which Uber unbelievably tries t 23 disclaim responsibility for negligent and harmful conduct by its own drivers: 24 25 26 27 You understand, therefore, that by using the application and the service, you may be exposed to transportation that is potentially dangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwise objectionable, and that you use the application and the service at your own risk. 28 Page 28of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 29 of 58 (emphasis added). I 44. 2 Ms. Doe I and Ms. Doe 2 were victims of "unsafe," "dangerous" and "offensive'· 3 conduct by their Uber drivers. 4 XII. 5 The Number of Reported Incidents of Sexual and Other Assaults by Uber Drivers, Largely Against Female Passengers, Indicates Systemic Deficiencies Regarding Uber's Safety Measures Concerning Drivers 6 7 145. Sadly, the details about what happened to Ms. Doe I and Ms. Doe 2 are no 8 anomalies. Rather, a litany of incidents regarding sexual assaults, and physical assaults, by Ube 9 drivers on passengers, shows a pattern of similarly heinous, but avoidable attacks. IO II 146. Upon information and belief, hundreds of sexual assaults by Uber drivers agains Uber passengers, almost all women, have been reported in the media. By way of example only I2 I3 I4 and to provide an overview, a few examples are set forth below: I47. On or around September 4, 2017, Ismael D. Moussaoui, a Seattle-based Ube 15 driver, was charged with second-degree rape for allegedly attacking a 23-year-old woman. I I6 court documents, prosecutors alleged that "The defendant used his position as a car servic I7 driver to prey on the victim ... [he] sexually assaulted the victim in the backseat of his car. Th 18 I9 20 2I 22 23 victim was able to fight him off and was left on the side of a road screaming and partial! clothed." 148. In August 20 I 7, a Massachusetts Uber driver admitted to exposing himself t multiple young girls and was sentenced to two and a half years in jail. The driver, Paul Griffi ("Griffin"), aged 29, was charged with six counts of open and gross lewdness, six counts o 24 25 accosting and annoying a person of the opposite sex, operating a motor vehicle to endanger 26 failure to stop for police and resisting arrest. In addition to jail, the court ordered that Griffi 27 was barred from employment with any ridehailing or taxi company. 28 Page 29of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarato1y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 30 of 58 149. An Orange County, California Uber driver was charged with raping a femal 2 passenger in his vehicle in March 2017 while driving the woman home from a compan 3 gathering in Newport Beach. 4 5 150. Unsurprisingly, Uber offered its scripted but hollow public statement, "Nobod should have to go through what this woman reported to police." Incredulously, Uber ha 6 7 8 9 10 1I issued this same statement countless times over the last seven years, yet reports of violenc against female passengers are increasing at a shocking pace. 151. In the summer of 2016, a Drexel University student reported publicly that she wa sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. The young woman stated she and a friend were out at th Philadelphia Museum of Art and called an Uber Pool to head home. A young man was sharin 12 13 their ride and was sitting in the back seat. Her friend was dropped off first and, although he 14 apartment was just four blocks away, the Uber driver claimed that he "took a wrong turn" an 15 dropped off the male passenger first. 16 woman said she was "pressed up against the corner of the car" and saying "please stop, pleas 17 Thereafter, the Uber driver started touching her. Th stop." When the car stopped at a light, she luckily was able to maneuver the locks and escap 18 19 20 into the street where she called for help. 152. On or around August 22, 2015, Efren Madrigal ("Madrigal"), a newly minte 21 Uber driver who had been on the road for only three days, was accused of raping a passenger i 22 New Jersey. The female passenger and a friend had initially invited Madrigal in to play card 23 and chat after he picked them up through Uber and dropped them off at the victim's home. Th 24 25 friendly encount~r rapidly became dangerous, however, as Madrigal allegedly then proceeded t 26 assault the woman who had ridden with him. Uber stated that the incident was "deplorable" an 27 that Madrigal was blocked "as soon as [Uber was] made aware of the allegations." 28 Page 30of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 31 of 58 153. In August 2015, a female Uber passenger in Dallas alleged that her driver ha 2 raped her. It was discovered that her Uber driver had been convicted of a number of felonies bu 3 was approved to drive for Uber. The driver allegedly followed her into her apartment and rape 4 her there. Uber later issued details regarding the investigation it undertook of the driver an 5 admitted to improperly permitting him to drive. 6 7 154. On April 30, 2015, a female Uber passenger in New York City alleged that sh 8 was sexually assaulted and groped by her Uber driver. After falling asleep during the ride, sh 9 claims that she awoke to her driver caressing her face, after which he grabbed her face and 10 leaned in for a kiss. Fortunately, she was able to escape, but stated that "If I hadn't pushed hi 11 away, then I'm pretty certain he would have done more." 12 13 155. In late April 2015, a University of Southern California ("USC") student accuse 14 an Uber driver of raping her while she was unconscious, unaware, and unable to consent to an 15 sexual acts. Ironically, in March 2015, USC had issued a crime alert about an alleged sexual 16 assault and recommended that students use Uber to stay safe. That language was excluded from 17 the campus alert sent out after the April 2015 incident. 18 19 20 21 22 23 156. Also in late April 2015, two women were allegedly assaulted m Madison Wisconsin by their Uber driver(s). 157. On February 6, 2015, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a female passenger allege that she was raped and kidnapped by her Uber driver. According to a police report, the Ube driver held her down, ripped her pants, raped her, and then held her captive, continuing to driv 24 25 26 her around for nearly two hours, refusing to let her out of the car. Uber claims that it wa unaware of any ,such incident until forty days after the victim first reported the alleged sexua 27 28 Page 31of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 32 of 58 assault. 2 3 4 5 Indeed, the Uber driver remained on the road, continuing to drive for Uber, for th duration of that time. 158. In December 2014, an Uber driver in Los Angeles allegedly attempted to grab an kiss a female passenger, who happened to be South African singer/songwriter Nikki Williams, o her driveway. Ms. Williams was able to fight him off and run inside her house. 6 7 159. Furthermore, on August 14, 2014, an Uber driver in Washington, D.C. wa 8 accused of sexually assaulting a passenger in the back of his Uber car. The passenger accuse 9 the driver of touching her while she was asleep in the car. 10 11 160. Likewise, in September 2014, an Uber driver in Orlando, Florida was arreste after a female passenger accused him of grabbing her breast and fondling it in an aggressiv 12 13 14 15 16 17 manner. The driver was accused of repeatedly commenting on her appearance before stoppin the car and shoving his hand in her tank top to fondle her breast. 161. Moreover, on December 6, 2014 in Boston, Massachusetts, Uber driver Alejandr Done ("Done") allegedly pulled up to a residence and picked up a young woman waiting for th pre-arranged driver. The woman had been out with friends and decided to use a car service to ge 18 19 home. Done picked up the woman and allegedly drove to a location that she was not familia 20 with, pulled over to a secluded area and jumped in the backseat, struck her with his hands 21 strangled her, locked the car doors so that she could not escape, and sexually assaulted th 22 woman. In October 2015, Done pleaded guilty to aggravated rape, kidnapping and assault an 23 battery of his female Uber passenger. He was sentenced to serve 10 to 12 years. 24 25 162. In Washington D.C., in December 2012, an Uber driver allegedly grabbed a 20 26 year-old female passenger from behind as she exited the car, knocked her to the ground causin 27 her head to hit the concrete, and then raped her. 28 Page 32of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe!, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 33 of 58 163. 2 and aggressive behavior made against Uber drivers by unsuspecting female passengers. 3 4 The above examples are just a sampling of the number of accusations of violen 164. Such tragic incidents, while avoidable, are no surprise given Uber's hollo commitment to consumer safety. 5 XIII. Uber Targets Intoxicated Passengers 6 165. 7 Uber's advertising campaigns make the assertion that it provides the best optio 8 for a safe ride home after a night of drinking. Indeed, the Company commissioned a report wit! 9 Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD") where it declared: "When empowered with mor 10 transportation options like Uber, people are making better choices that save lives" (emphasi I1 added). 12 166. 13 14 safe ride is always within reach and where drunk-driving is a thing of the past." 15 16 Uber further claimed that "Uber and MADD are working toward a world where 167. The report and others have been widely publicized by Uber and its press team correlating the existence of Uber drivers and vehicles in a city with diminished drunk drivin 17 rates. 18 19 168. Uber's marketing campaign has expanded to include discounts for Uber users t 20 purchase the "Breathometer," a smartphone breathalyzer, and the companies have partnered t 21 provide rewards in exchange for continued use. 22 23 169. What Uber has not shared with passengers is that making the choice to hail a rid after drinking also puts those same passengers in peril from the Uber drivers themselves. B 24 25 26 marketing heavily toward young women who have been drinking while claiming that passenge safety is its # 1 priority, Uber is instead putting these women at risk. 27 28 Page 33of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 34 of 58 170. Although Uber advertises that it is committed to providing consumers with th 2 "safest ride on the road," the reality is that at the hands of an Uber driver, Plaintiffs and the Clas 3 were subjected to traumatic and harrowing sexual violence that no person should be forced t 4 5 endure. XIV. Uber Misleads Consumers About Insurance Coverage For Rides 6 7 8 9 10 11 171. Uber knowingly has and continues to mislead consumers, including Plaintiffs an Class members, about insurance coverage relating to rides facilitated through the app. 172. The consequence is significant. Because Uber refuses to commercially insur drivers, and Uber's drivers are not commercially licensed nor insured, a substantial deficit o appropriate coverage exists. In contrast, regulated taxi and limousine companies are forced t 12 13 14 15 16 17 comply with commercial insurance minimums imposed by local and state legislation that exist to protect individual consumers. 173. Uber's refusal to insure drivers is a cost-saving measure, but it is also a reflectio of the Company's intentional decision to distance itself from potential liability, given its intimat knowledge of the risks and potential dangers associated with allowing non-professional driver 18 19 20 21 22 23 access to transport individual consumers without any oversight. 174. Based on the allegations herein and the known risks and harm to femal passengers at the hands of their Uber drivers, the Company's failure to provide adequat insurance coverage is abhorrent. 175. Uber deceives consumers by failing to disclose its policies regarding insuranc 24 25 coverage of its drivers. As a result, consumers are misled into believing that the types o 26 insurance policies that underwrite most for-hire transportation providers, including taxis and 27 black car companies, also protect them when they use the Uber app. 28 Page 34of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 35 of 58 176. Consumers are deceived by Uber about coverage for the different stages of a ride 2 specifically, before, during and after the ride, as well as whether coverage exists by way of th 3 driver's own personal, non-commercial insurance policy, or supplemental excess coverag 4 5 offered by Uber only for certain stages of a ride. 177. For example, over the last several years, as part of the "Safety" page, Uber ha 6 7 posted different messages to consumers about insurance coverage, primarily drawing attention t 8 the fact that during a ride on the app, Uber provides drivers a "one million dollar liabilit 9 policy." 10 11 178. This claim is misleading and false in a number of ways, however, based on Uber' classification of drivers as independent contractors, Uber's classification of periods before 12 13 during and after a "ride," and how Uber's insurance coverage interacts with a driver's insurance. 14 179. 15 insurance coverage. 16 In the Uber ridehailing context, there are three distinct periods for purposes o • Period 1 covers the time when an Uber driver is on the app and waiting for a ride request. During Period I, Uber does not provide any collision coverage and drastically lowers the liability coverage - creating a "gap" in coverage. • In Period 2, the point in time when a driver accepts a ride request on the app and is en route to the passenger, Uber provides additional insurance coverage. • Period 3 is identified as beginning when the passenger gets into the Uber driver's vehicle. Uber provides coverage at this time. However, from the moment a driver turns off the app, regardless if he is still in transport or the consumer is in the vehicle, Uber's insurance policies may no longer provide coverage. Unquestionably, there is a multitude of scenarios during which liability could arise yet no coverage is available, through Uber or the driver's own policy. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 35of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 36 of 58 180. Indeed, many Uber drivers were surprised to learn that their personal insurer 2 disclaimed coverage once the insurer found out that the driver was providing transportation fo 3 Uber. 4 5 181. It is an industry standard for most personal insurance policies to disclai coverage when a driver is "working." If an Uber driver disclosed to his insurer that he wa 6 7 driving for Uber as a means of earning income, almost all insurers would require that driver t 8 purchase commercial coverage - regardless of the driver's status as a non-commercially license 9 driver. 10 11 182. Recently, some insurance companies have responded to the ridehailing industr and have started to offer a hybrid insurance policy to cover Period I and other gaps in coverage. 12 13 183. For instance, Erie Insurance allegedly offers policies that cover driving fo 14 personal or business use, and during every part of a ridehailing trip, specifically, before, durin 15 and after the ride. 16 184. Upon information and belief, this insurance is available to Uber drivers 17 Pennsylvania only. 18 19 185. Other insurers offer policies specifically intended to cover the gap in coverag 20 during Period l, and other policies are designed to provide primary coverage whether or not 21 driver has a passenger in the vehicle. 22 23 186. But, for drivers who transport passengers in states that do not offer these ne hybrid policies, their only option to protect themselves is to purchase a commercial policy tha 24 25 can cost as much as ten times the cost of personal insurance. 26 27 28 Page 36of58 Class Action Complaint/or Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint/or Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 37 of 58 187. Importantly, Uber does not require drivers to cover insurance gap periods 2 including Period 1 or events immediately after a ride is over but relating to the consumer's ride 3 referred to as the "time after drop off." 4 5 188. For rapes, sexual assaults or other gender-motivated violence that takes plac when the driver turns off his app or exits the vehicle and commits the violence outside th 6 7 8 9 10 11 vehicle, on the street or even several hundred feet from the vehicle, Uber's policies state that th Company is not responsible for harm during this "gap." 189. As such, passengers blindly request transportation using the app without knowin whether their driver is adequately insured. 190. Moreover, when a driver accepts a passenger via a "street hail," specifically, whe 12 13 an individual is picked up on the street without using the app, despite the Uber sign in the vehicl 14 and other indicators that the driver works for Uber, there is no insurance coverage offered b 15 Uber at any moment during Periods 1-3. 16 17 191. Many regulated taxi companies in cities throughout the country must purchas specific insurance to cover street hails based on the realistic expectation that drivers will b 18 19 induced to pick up passengers off the street for cash. Similarly, taxi and private for-hire ca 20 companies are required under state and local laws to employ only commercially licensed drivers 21 and by definition, these employers are required to provide insurance coverage for any period 22 23 during the transport of a passenger. 192. Due to this systemic and serious problem that Uber knowingly fails to correct 24 25 26 more than thirty states have issued public consumer warnings about the lack of insuranc coverage involved with rides on the Uber app. 27 28 Page 37of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 38 of 58 193. By way of example only, such states include Kentucky, "What You Need to Kno 2 About Ridesharing Programs;" 6 and Connecticut ("Consumer Alert: Drivers who work fo 3 transportation network companies (TNC) may not be covered by their personal automobil 4 insurance policies while driving for hire. This is due to a common exclusion in most personal 5 auto policies for claims arising while driving for hire, a practice sometimes referred to as live 6 7 service .... while every personal automobile insurance policy differs, nearly all contain exclusion 8 for livery. If a policy contains a livery exclusion, this means that the policy generally will no 9 provide coverage for liability incurred while driving passengers in exchange for remuneration 10 other than an expense-sharing arrangement, such as a carpool."), as well as Maine, Ne ll Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington and the District of Columbia. 12 13 14 15 16 17 XV. Drivers Are Employees 194. Uber employs its drivers in traditional at-will relationships, in which th Company has the discretion to fire its drivers for any reason and at any time. 195. Drivers are not charged a fee by Uber to apply to become employees. 196. Drivers are not charged a fee to download the app to receive notifications of ride 18 19 20 21 22 23 mediated by Uber. 197. Furthermore, fare prices for rides are set exclusively by Uber executives. Driver have no input on fares charged to consumers. Drivers are not permitted to negotiate wit consumers on fares charged. 198. However, Uber can and does directly modify charges to consumers if Ube 24 25 determines that a driver has taken a circuitous route to a destination. 26 27 28 See http://insurance.ky.gov/Documents/caridesharing07 I I 17.pdf. Page 38of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 39 of 58 199. 2 3 4 5 Uber takes a fee ranging between twenty percent (20%) and thirty percent (30% of every ride charged to a consumer. 200. Uber controls its drivers' contacts with its consumer base, and considers it consumer list to be proprietary information. To that end, drivers are not permitted to answe passenger inquiries about booking future rides outside of the Uber app. 6 7 201. Uber requires its drivers to accept all ride requests when the drivers are logge 8 into the app. 9 suspension or termination. 10 11 202. Drivers who reject too many ride requests risk facing discipline, includin Consumers give feedback on rides they have taken, and rate drivers on a seal from 1-5 stars. These ratings are used by Uber to discipline and terminate drivers. 12 13 203. Despite the above facts, as a matter of policy, Uber claims that drivers are not at 14 will employees, but rather independent contractors. 15 independent contractors is an integral part of the ridehailing company's business model, and ha 16 17 The value of classifying workers a saved Uber millions of dollars. XVI. Uber's Perpetration of Fraud and Misleading Advertising 18 19 204. This lawsuit seeks to compensate Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, individually, for th 20 rapes that they suffered due to Uber's inadequate and disingenuous "commitment to safety.' 21 Importantly, Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a Class o 22 passengers that have suffered harm because of Uber's safety failures and misleading and fals 23 representations about the safety guaranteed to passengers when taking rides ordered on the app. 24 25 205. Uber, in line with its slogan of "Expanding Globally," aggressively an 26 intentionally disregarded years of policy and regulation controlling taxi and transportatio 27 infrastructures around the country. 28 Page 39 of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 40 of 58 206. Had Uber not sacrificed passenger safety for the sake of profit and expansion, an 2 actually cared about who it was employing to drive its vehicles, rather than being preoccupie 3 with racing to control its share of the taxi market, at the expense of existing taxi companies an 4 5 consumers, Plaintiffs herein and proposed Class members would not have been harmed. 207. Uber has, and continues to, knowingly mislead the public about the safety an 6 7 8 security measures it employs to ensure even basic levels of consumer safety. 208. Passengers, including Plaintiffs, reasonably relied on Uber's representations an 9 promises about its safety and security measures, including its driver screening, background chec IO procedures, ongoing monitoring of driver conduct while driving for Uber, and insuranc 11 coverage in place for rides on the app. Uber's passengers, including Plaintiffs, utilized Uber' 12 13 14 taxi services as a result of this reliance. 209. Had Uber knowingly provided truthful and accurate data about its procedures a 15 compared to the stringent methods used by licensed taxi and for-hire car companies throughou 16 the U.S., including its comparatively deficient driver screening, background check procedures 17 monitoring of driver conduct while driving for Uber and insurance coverage in place for rides o 18 19 20 21 22 23 the app, reasonable consumers, passengers, Plaintiffs and the Class members would not hav downloaded the app or purchased rides on the app for transport. 210. Uber engaged in these misleading and false advertisements and representations a all times during the Class period, including by making such representations on multiple medi platforms, including its website, paid internet ads, magazines, newspapers, billboards and th 24 25 sides of buses. 26 27 28 Page 40of58 Class Action Compiaintfor Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 41 of 58 211. Uber engaged in its intentional misrepresentations for the express purpose o 2 protecting its brand, its reputation and to increase profits by increasing the number of rides an 3 rides requested as a result of consumers reliance on the false information. 4 5 212. For instance, after visiting Uber's website before signing up for the Uber app Plaintiffs were aware of Uber's multiple promises to consumers that consumer safety was 6 7 priority. Among those statements, inter alia, were the following: 8 • "Wherever you are around the world, Uber is committed to connecting you to the safest ride on the road. That means setting the strictest safety standards possible, then working hard to improve them every day. The specifics vary depending on what local governments allow, but within each city we operate, we aim to go above and beyond local requirements to ensure your comfort and security - what we're doing in the US is an example of our standards around the world." • "From the moment you request a ride to the moment you arrive, the Uber experience has been designed from the ground up with your safety in mind." • "Making cities better is at the heart of everything we do . It's much more than improving the way people get around. It's celebrating what makes those cities special, caring about the people who make them great, and being responsible citizens. That's why we work hard to keep our streets safe for everyone, whether they're on foot, on a bike, or in another car." 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 213. In deciding to download the Uber app, Class members, including Plaintiffs, re lie on advertisements that recommended taking Uber over driving while intoxicated. 23 214. Class members, including Plaintiffs, relied on these representations and rode i 24 25 26 vehicles driven by Uber drivers as a result. Uber knew that its representations and promise about passenger safety were false and misleading, yet continued to allow its passengers t 27 28 Page 41of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 42 of 58 believe in the truth of its representations and promises, and to profit from its passengers' relianc 2 3 4 5 on such representations and promises. 215. Unsurprisingly, in the U.S., despite its proclamations that consumer safety is it top priority, Uber has actively pushed back against legislation and other measures requirin strong background checks for its drivers out of the public's view. 6 7 216. For instance, according to media accounts, in Colorado, Uber persuade 8 lawmakers to ease drivers' background checks in a bill legalizing ridehailing companies 9 including abolishing FBI background checks and fingerprint checks. 10 217. Similarly, media reports indicate that in Illinois, Uber lobbied Governor Pa 11 Quinn to veto a bill that would have forced Uber to strengthen background checks. 12 13 218. In California, Uber is alleged to have helped defeat a law that would 14 required drivers to undergo a background check by the state's Justice Department, as is require 15 of taxi drivers. 16 17 219. In addition, Uber has been repeatedly sued for its deceptive practices regardin background checks. For instance, as referenced above, the district attorneys of San Francisc 18 19 and Los Angeles filed suit against Uber alleging that the Company had misled consumers abou 20 its background checks by misrepresenting the extent to which Uber screens its potential drivers. 21 XVII. Plaintiffs Seek Immediate Injunctive Relief Ordering Uber to Affirmativel Overhaul Its Woefully Inadequate Safety Measures, So That No Woman Has to Eve Endure What They Experienced 22 23 220. The foregoing negligent and fraudulent behavior on the part of Uber demonstrate 24 25 26 that the Company must take immediate action to improve the safety of its consumers, which ha sadly played a narrow role thus far in Uber's quest to "expand" globally and reap profits. 27 28 Page 42of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 43 of 58 221. 2 3 4 As detailed below, Plaintiffs are not subject to the grossly unconscionable and unfair terms in the app that disproportionately favor Uber and harm passengers. 222. Importantly, for purposes of this action, Plaintiffs and Class members are no subject to any terms listed on the app relating to arbitration. Pursuant to California Suprem 5 Court decisions, Uber cannot cause consumers to waive a statutory right to seek public injunctiv 6 7 relief in any forum. Such a provision is contrary to California public policy and unenforceabl 8 under California law. 9 XVIII. Terms and Conditions of the App 10 A. Consumers Are Not Required to or Asked to Read the Terms and Conditions of the App 223. At all relevant times, all passengers who have downloaded and opened the Ube 11 12 13 app have been prompted to enter information into a few screens. 14 224. On the first screen, passengers are prompted to enter an email, a mobile phon 15 16 number, and a password. There is "helper text" at the bottom of the screen that provides a 17 explanation for why the information sought in the form is needed, stating: "We use your emai 18 and mobile number to send you ride confirmations and receipts." 19 225. On the second screen, passengers are then also prompted to enter a full name an 20 a photo. The helper text on this screen states: "Your name and photo helps your driver identif 21 22 23 24 25 you at pickup." 226. Qn the final screen, passengers are prompted to enter a credit card number. helper text on this screen states: "By creating an Uber account, you agree to the Terms Conditions and Privacy Policy." 26 27 28 Page 43of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 44 of 58 22 7. Importantly, there is no indication to the prospective passenger that the text o 2 "Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy" is a link that can be clicked and that will lead to th 3 full text of the Terms and Conditions. 4 5 228. There is no information about the "Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy" o the prospective passenger's screen and no prompt is provided to suggest that she should ope 6 7 8 9 10 any link. 229. Indeed, the text "Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy" is in a lighter, lower contrast font as compared to the other helper text, further obscuring its significance. 230. The helper text on each of the three screens is in an identical location - toward th 11 bottom of the screen. 12 13 14 15 16 17 231. On each screen, the prospective passenger merely needs to enter information int the fields, and then to select the "Next" button at the top of the screen. 232. To advance past the final screen, where the credit card number is entered, again there is no requirement to review the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy. 233. Instead, the button at the top of the screen merely says "Done" and only indicate 18 19 advancing through the process for each screen. 20 B. Passengers Did Not Agree to the Terms and Conditions 21 234. At no point did Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 assent or agree to the Terms an 22 23 Conditions to the app. 235. There is no statement that clicking "Done" signifies assent to the purporte 24 25 contract implied in the Terms and Conditions. 26 27 28 Page 44of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 45 of 58 1 236. Once the prospective consumer advances through the third screen, where she ha 2 entered her credit card number, she has created an account with Uber and the application i 3 complete. 4 5 23 7. There is no indication that by selecting the "Done" button on the final screen, th prospective consumer is also assenting to the Terms and Conditions, or even any clear indicati01 6 7 8 9 10 that selecting "Next" is the final step to account creation. 238. At no point prior to their harm, were Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 required to open link to the Terms and Conditions. 239. At no point were Jane Doe I or Jane Doe 2 required to view the Terms an 1I Conditions. 12 13 14 15 16 17 240. At no point were Jane Doe I or Jane Doe 2 required to check a box that says "I Agree" to the Terms and Conditions. 241. At no point were Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 required to indicate that they hav assented to the Terms and Conditions. 242. At no point were Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 required to affirm that they had eve 18 19 20 21 22 read the Terms and Conditions. 243. The full text of the Terms and Conditions are never provided to the prospectiv consumer during the process of signing up for an account. 244. The Terms and Conditions are never emailed to the prospective consumer, a 23 account creation or otherwise. 24 25 26 245. The Terms and Conditions are never mailed to the prospective consumer, a account creation or otherwise. 27 28 Page 45of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe /,et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 46 of 58 246. During the account creation process, the prospective consumer can only clic 2 through an optional link to view the Terms and Conditions through the screen on which the credi 3 card number is entered. 4 5 247. Once the account is created, to access the Terms and Conditions within the app, consumer is required to click first on a menu button, sift through multiple pages and links i 6 7 8 9 10 order to find a "Legal" link under the menu sidebar. 248. Once in the "Legal" section, a consumer can access some version of Uber's Term and Conditions. 249. After clicking on "Terms & Conditions" in the app, the default set of terms an l1 conditions that comes up is for Australia. 12 13 14 15 16 250. The font in which the Terms and Conditions are printed is microscopic. 251. The default Terms and Conditions consist of 4,604 words and 68 paragraphs of legalese. 252. To access Terms and Conditions that would purportedly bind individuals i 17 countries other than Australia, one must identify and then use a drop-down menu to find th 18 19 relevant country. There is no direct link to Uber's Terms and Conditions on the homepage of th 20 253. 21 Company's website. 22 254. 23 In order to find the Terms and Conditions, one must first click on a sideba labeled "Menu.". The Terms and Conditions are not available through links such as "About Us,' 24 25 26 27 "Safety" or "Help Center." 255. Indeed, typing in "Terms and Conditions" into the search field in "Help Center' only yields the result of "Gift Cards Terms and Conditions." 28 Page 46of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 47 of 58 256. 2 3 4 5 In order to find the Terms and Conditions, a prospective user must sift throug multiple pages and links in order to find the "Legal" link under the "Menu" sidebar. 257. The Terms and Conditions to which a prospective consumer in the United State would be bound has an arbitration provision that, upon a recent revision of the Terms an Conditions, is now highlighted in the first section, but has previously been buried as far down a 6 7 8 9 10 11 numbered item 6 - "Dispute Resolution." 258. approximately seven (7) full pages of microscopic text to reach the "Dispute Resolution' prov1s1on. C. Because Passengers Never Assented to the Terms and Conditions, They are Not Binding 259. Based on the foregoing, neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 were provided 12 13 When viewing the Terms and Conditions in the app, a user must scroll througl 14 conspicuous notice of the existence of alleged contract terms when she downloaded the app. 15 16 17 18 19 260. At all relevant times, neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 were required to, and no did they, review the Terms and Conditions of the app. 261. Similarly, neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 were required to, and nor did they click the link and review the provisions located within the "Terms & Conditions and Privac 20 Policy." 21 22 23 24 25 26 262. Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 were required to check a box that affirmed tha they "agreed" to the Terms and Conditions when they downloaded the app. 263. Uber failed to properly notify its consumers, including Jane Doe 1 and Jane Do 2, when modifications were made to the Terms and Conditions. Through their continued use of the app, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were not required to, and nor did they, affirmatively agree t 27 28 the Terms and Conditions of the app. Page 47of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 48 of 58 264. 2 3 copy of the Terms and Conditions. D. Uber Retained the Right to Unilaterally Change the Terms and Conditions of the App 265. At all relevant times, including when Plaintiffs downloaded the app, the Term 4 5 6 7 8 At all relevant times, Uber never mailed or emailed Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 and Conditions contained language purporting to grant Uber the unilateral right to modify th agreement. 266. Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions, Uber provided itself with the exclusiv 9 10 11 12 13 14 ability to alter allegedly binding agreement terms and simultaneously removed any obligation t send notice to consumers regarding modifications. 267. Instead, Uber simply included a provision m the Terms and Conditions tha contractual changes are effective once posted on its website, http://www.uber.com/legal. 268. In the Terms and Conditions, Uber requires arbitration for any claims that aris 15 16 out of the use of the app. It excludes from arbitration claims any brought "to prevent the actual 17 or threatened infringement, misappropriation or violation of a paiiy's copyrights, trademarks, 18 trade secrets, 19 20 269. pa~ents or other intellectual property rights." Upon information and belief, Uber's arbitration provision excludes the types o claims Uber is 1.nost likely to bring against others, while requiring arbitration for the types o 21 22 claims most likely to be brought against Uber. 23 270. Recovery is also severely limited by Uber's Terms and Conditions. 24 271. According to the Terms and Conditions, Uber's liability for any and all damage 25 and losses incurred cannot exceed $500. 26 27 28 Page 48of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 49 of 58 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 2 272. Plaintiffs seek redress in their individual capacities and on behalf of a Clas 3 consisting of similarly situated consumers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) or (b)(3) 4 Plaintiffs seek Class certification of a Class defined as follows: 5 All individuals in the U.S. who obtained rides using the Uber app and were subject to rape, sexual assault or gender-motivated violence or harassment by their Uber driver in the last four years. 6 7 8 9 10 11 273. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class definition with greate specificity or subclass divisions after discovery. 274. Excluded from the Class are: (i) any judge presiding over this action and thei family members; (ii) Uber, its subsidiaries, successors or any entity in which Uber or its paren 12 13 that has a controlling interest, Uber's current or former employees, officers, directors; (iii 14 persons that properly exclude themselves form the Class; and (iv) the legal representatives 15 successors or assigns of any properly excluded persons. 16 17 275. Numerosity. The potential Class members as defined are so numerous an diversely located throughout the U.S. that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Clas 18 19 members are located throughout the U.S. Joinder is therefore not practicable. While the exac 20 number of Class members is unknown because such information is in the exclusive control o 21 Uber, upon information and belief, the Class is greater than I 00 individuals. 22 23 276. Commonality. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and th Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individuals Class members. 24 25 26 common questions of law and fact include, inter alia, whether: • Uber violated the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; 27 28 Page 49of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 50 of 58 • Uber engaged in, and continues to engage in, unlawful, fraudulent and unfair practices that are substantially likely to mislead the public, and therefore members of the Class; • Uber has engaged in and continues to engage in unlawful, fraudulent and unfair practices, including by representing to the public, and Class members, that it provides safe rides and adequately screens drivers when Uber knows that it fails to screen drivers in any meaningful way, thereby presenting grave threats to Class members' safety and wellbeing; • Uber fraudulently and unfairly misrepresents to Class members that Uber had the ability to and would in fact accurately track the transport of Class members from where they were picked up to their destinations; • Uber fraudulently and unfairly misrepresents to Class members that drivers are adequately insured or that Uber maintains proper and adequate insurance coverage for rides; • Uber fraudulently and unfairly misrepresents to Class members that Uber would monitor the criminal backgrounds for drivers after they started driving for Uber in any meaningful way, thereby presenting grave threats to Class members' safety and well-being; Uber's deceptive conduct resulted in profits and pecuniary gain received from consumers, including Class members; 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 • 18 19 • Whether Class members are entitled to restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. §§ 17200-17203; • Whether Class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17204; • Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to injunctive relief, attorneys fees' and costs under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780; and • The nature of the relief, including equitable relief, to which Class members are entitled. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 277. Thus, commonality of factual and legal issues is satisfied. 28 Page 50of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 51 of 58 278. Tvpicality. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiffs an 2 Class members were exposed and subjected to Uber's uniform practices and policies surroundin 3 its driver screening and monitoring procedures, as well as Uber's representations to the publi 4 and the Class about the safety of Uber's rides, including the safety of Uber's drivers that ha 5 resulted in, and will continue to cause, irreparable harm but for immediate action by the Court. 6 279. 7 Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent an 8 protect the interests of the Class members. Plaintiffs' counsel are competent and experienced i 9 litigating class actions. 10 280. Superiority of Class Action. A class action is superior to other availabl 11 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all of th 12 13 Class members is impracticable. Furthermore, the adjudication of this controversy through 14 class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and. potentially conflicting adjudication o 15 the asserted claims. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a clas 16 17 action. 281. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Uber's practices are uniform as to all Clas 18 19 20 members. Uber has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so tha final injunctive relief or declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Fraudulent and Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business and Professional Code §§ 17200, et seq.) On Behalf of Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 21 22 23 24 25 26 282. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully se forth herein. 283. Uber has engaged in and continues to engage in unlawful, fraudulent and unfai 27 28 practices that are substantially likely to mislead the public, and therefore members of the Class. Page 51of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 52 of 58 284. Uber made intentional misrepresentations of fact to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 2 known by Uber to be false and substantially misleading, including that Uber would safe! 3 transport Plaintiffs through Uber's driver agents, Abdullah and Miguel LNU. Uber made sue 4 false representations after failing to screen the drivers in any meaningful way, thereby presentin 5 grave threats to Plaintiffs' safety and well-being. 6 7 285. Uber has engaged in and continues to engage in similar unlawful, fraudulent an 8 unfair practices, including by representing to the public and Class members that it provides sa£ 9 rides and adequately screens drivers when Uber knows that it fails to screen drivers in an 10 I1 meaningful way, thereby presenting grave threats to Class members' safety and well-being. 286. Uber further fraudulently and unfairly misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Ube 12 13 would provide a safer ride home for Plaintiffs than had they driven home while intoxicated, an 14 that it had the ability to and would in fact accurately track the transport of Plaintiffs from wher 15 they were picked up to their destinations. Uber has made and continues to make such false an 16 17 unfair representations to the public, including Class members. 287. Plaintiffs believe that Uber's fraudulent and deceptive conduct resulted in profit 18 19 20 and pecuniary gain received from consumers, including Class members. 288. The business acts and practices of Uber are unlawful, unfair and deceptive withi 21 the meaning of the consumer protection statutes because, inter alia, Uber engaged in fraud b 22 intentionally misrepresenting that it provides safe rides and adequately screens drivers when 23 Uber knows that it fails to screen drivers in any meaningful way, thereby presenting grave threat 24 25 26 to Class members' safety and well-being, and otherwise engaged in acts that deceived, or wer likely to deceive the public. 27 28 Page 52of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 53 of 58 289. As a direct and proximate result of Uber's conduct, as set forth herein, Uber ha 2 received ill-gotten gains and/or profits, including, but not limited to money. Therefore, Uber i 3 and was unjustly enriched. 4 5 290. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiffs and the Class reques restitution and/or restitutionary disgorgement of all sums, including profits, obtained in violatio 6 7 8 9 10 Il of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. 291. Plaintiffs and the Class seek injunctive relief, restitution and restitutionar disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from Uber as provided in Business & Professions Code § 17203 Plaintiffs engaged counsel to prosecute this action. 292. Plaintiffs and the Class seek to enjoin Uber from engaging in these wrongful 12 13 14 practices, as alleged herein, in the future. There is no other adequate remedy at law and if a injunction is not ordered, Plaintiffs and the Class will suffer irreparable harm. 15 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code§ 1750, et seq.) On Behalf of Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Members 16 17 18 19 20 293. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully se forth herein. 294. Plaintiffs and each Class member is a consumer and Uber's transportatio 21 22 services are goods or services as those terms are defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761. 23 295. Uber is a "person," as that term is defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761 (c). 24 296. Plaintiffs' and each Class member's transportation or ride through the use of th 25 26 Uber app constituted a "transaction," as that term is defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761 (e). 297. As detailed above, Uber has engaged in and continues to engage in busines 27 28 practices in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (the CLRA) by inter alia, active) Page 53of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 54 of 58 concealing and failing to warn passengers about the inadequacy of its background screening o 2 3 4 5 drivers, as well as its failure to monitor conduct of Uber drivers after hire. 298. Uber also misleads consumers about the safety of its transport by false! suggesting that it has the ability to, and in fact does, monitor passengers' transport during rides. 299. Uber also misleads passengers about the level of insurance that the Company ha 6 7 that is applicable to cover passengers, the insurance Uber requires drivers to have, the insuranc 8 coverage actually carried by drivers, as well as the circumstances in which Uber regular! 9 disclaims coverage. 10 11 300. Uber has actively concealed and failed to disclose this information knowing tha such information is material to a reasonable consumer's decision to use the app for transport, an 12 13 thereby misrepresented the safety of rides offered on the app. 14 301. Uber's business practices are unfair and/or deceptive and should be enjoined. 15 302. Uber has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices intended to result i 16 consumers using the app to arrange transport and consumers agreeing to pay Uber for the ride i 17 violation of Cal. Civ. Code§ 1770. 18 19 303. Uber knew and/or should have known that its concealment and/or omissions o 20 material fact concerning its safety representations to consumers, including its screening o 21 drivers, monitoring of drivers' conduct after hire, safety during transport, as well as applicabl 22 insurance coverage, the were material and likely to mislead the public. Accordingly, Uber' 23 conduct alleged herein violates the CLRA, including Cal. Civ. Code §§ l 770(a)(7) and (a)(9). 24 25 26 304. As a direct and proximate result of Uber's conduct, as set forth herein, Uber ha received ill-gotten gains and profits. Therefore, Uber has been unjustly enriched. 27 28 Page 54of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarato1y Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 55 of 58 305. 2 3 4 5 There is no other adequate remedy at law, and Plaintiffs and the Class will suffe irreparable harm unless Defendant's conduct is enjoined. 306. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ l 780(a) and (e), Plaintiffs and the Class seek a order enjoining Defendant's unlawful business practices as alleged herein. 307. On November 10, 2017, Plaintiffs notified Uber in writing that its conduct is i 6 7 violation of the CLRA and demanded that Uber remedy the violations. If after 30 days, Uber ha 8 failed to remedy its violations and provided notice to its affected consumers, Plaintiffs will 9 amend this Complaint to add claims for actual, punitive and statutory damages pursuant to th 10 CLRA, § 1782(2), including attorneys' fees and costs to the full extent allowed by law. ll 308. Additionally, under Cal. Civ. Code § 1021.5, Plaintiffs and the Class see 12 13 14 reasonable attorneys' fees as this lawsuit seeks the enforcement of an important right affectin the public interest and satisfies the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Assault & Battery) On Behalf of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 Individually 15 16 17 309. Plaintiffs reallege and reassert each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully se 18 19 20 forth herein. 310. T)1e violent acts committed against Plaintiffs by Uber's drivers while they wer 21 performing their job duties, including their rapes and sexual assaults of Plaintiffs, amounted to 22 series of harmful and offensive contacts to Plaintiffs, and reasonable apprehension in Plaintiffs o 23 immediate harmful or offensive contact to Plaintiffs, all of which were done intentionally and 24 25 26 27 without Plaintiffs' consent. 311. Uber is liable for the actions of its agents and employees directly and under th doctrine of respondent superior. 28 Page 55of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 56 of 58 312. Defendant is a common carrier who must carry passengers safely. As a commo 2 carrier, Defendant is vicariously liable for its employees' and agents' intentional and negligen 3 torts, whether or not such acts were committed within the scope of employment. Commo 4 5 carriers must use the highest care and vigilance of a very cautious person. They must do all tha human care, vigilance and foresight reasonably can do under the circumstances to avoid harm t 6 7 passengers. While a common carrier does not guarantee the safety of its passengers, it must us 8 reasonable skill to provide everything necessary for safe transportation, in view of th 9 transportation used and practical operation of the business. Uber breached its duty of care in it 10 actions towards Plaintiffs. 11 313. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs hav 12 13 14 sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological an emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. 15 16 314. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiffs hav incurred medical expenses and other economic damages. 17 315. The conduct of Uber was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and 18 19 was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including, but not limited to 20 Plaintiffs herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Cod 21 § 3294. 22 316. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery against Defendant in an amount t 23 be determined at trial. 24 25 26 27 28 Page 56of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 57 of 58 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment in their favor and agains Defendant, containing the following relief: 4 5 A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendan complained of herein violate the laws of the State of California and any other applicabl 6 7 jurisdiction within the United States of America; An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendant from engaging in sucl 8 B. 9 unlawful conduct; 10 C. Enter a permanent injunction directing that Uber take all affirmative step 11 necessary to remedy the effects of the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint, and to preven 12 13 repeated occurrences in the future, including the issuance of an order directing that Uber mus 14 immediately implement stricter and more thorough screening of potential Uber drivers as well a 15 subject existing Uber drivers to an immediate review of conduct engaged in by all drivers durin 16 the last 12 months; implement a policy to monitor driver conduct after they have been accepte 17 to drive on the app; implement changes to provides a means to monitor rides during transport an 18 19 centralize methods to quickly notify Uber when a driver has gone off the app during a ride o 20 substantially driven off route during an ongoing ride; and implement adequate insuranc 21 coverage for all stages of a ride and clearly inform the public about its insurance coverag 22 polices; 23 D. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgmen 24 25 26 interest, to compensate Plaintiffs for all physical, monetary and/or economic harm; for harm t their professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment; for all non-monetar 27 28 Page 57of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declarat01y Relief;. Complaint for Damages Doe 1, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: Case 3:17-cv-06571 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 58 of 58 and/or compensatory harm, including, but not limited to, compensation for mental anguish an 2 3 4 5 physical injuries; all other monetary and/or non-monetary losses suffered by Plaintiffs; E. An award of punitive damages; F. An award of costs that Plaintiffs have incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to the fullest extent permitted by law; and 6 7 G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein. Dated: November 14, 2017 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, WIGDORLLP 12 13 14 Jeanne M. Christensen Elizabeth J. Chen 15 19 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Tel.: (212) 25 7-6800 Fax: (212) 257-6845 jchristensen(@,wigdorlaw.com echen@wigdorlaw.com 20 ANDERSON & POOLE, P.C. 21 By:§~/_ 16 17 18 ~~--- 22 23 601 California Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel.: (415) 956-6413 Fax: (415) 956-6416 jcouche(@,adplaw.com 24 25 26 27 Counsel for Plaintiffs 28 Page 58of58 Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; Complaint for Damages Doe I, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Case No.: