Skip to main content

Uber fined $7.6 million in California for failure to report driver data

Uber fined $7.6 million in California for failure to report driver data

Share this story

Uber has been fined $7.6 million by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a failure to report data on its drivers, according to the Los Angeles Times. The ride-hail company said it plans to appeal the decision to the state's Court of Appeals, but will pay the fine in the meantime to avoid having its license suspended.

The fine stems from a July 2015 recommendation from an administrative law judge that Uber be fined and suspended from operating in California for the failure to report driver data, as required under a 2013 state law legalizing ride-hail apps. The judge contended that Uber's drivers were not doling out rides fairly to all passengers, regardless of where they live.

The fine was leveled at Rasier-CA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies, for "failure to fully and timely comply with the CPUC's reporting requirements," according to a statement from the utility. The company was also held in contempt and fined an additional $1,000.

"While we are disappointed by the decision, we look forward to making our case to the California Court of Appeals," an Uber spokesperson said. "In the meantime, we will pay the fine and continue to work in good faith with the Commission."

The Golden State has become inhospitable to one of its largest startups

Of course the fine amounts to pocket change to Uber, which is said to be worth $62.5 billion, has raised over $10 billion in capital, and is far and away the most valuable startup right now. Still, it comes on the heels of another judgment against Uber. The company recently agreed to refund customers in California $1.8 million for extra fees for rides to the airport that were collected improperly.

Overall, the Golden State is becoming legally inhospitable to Uber, which is based in San Francisco. In June, the California Labor Commission ruled that an Uber driver was an employee, not a contractor. The order was non-binding, but could prove bothersome for the company as it fights against a class action lawsuit brought by drivers in California that seeks to reclassify them as employees.