[potatolicious]

Wow. This is low.

The statement is absolute bullshit too: "In this instance, the New York City team was a bit too ambitious and we'll make sure they tone down their sales tactics."

No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that".

I live in NYC. The Uber app has now been banished from my phone. It's too bad the Gett app is kind of an unpolished turd.

[67726e]

I wonder if what they did could be considered criminal. Back in highschool a friend of mine did the "order a dozen pizzas to someone's house" prank and he got caught doing it. Though nothing came of it, a police officer told him he could have been charged under a crime called "Defrauding an innkeeper" for ordering a service/product under false pretenses.

[joosters]

TFA: "If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages."

[67726e]

Except the incident occurred in New York state and they consulted someone about California state law? I'd guess most states have similar laws so it is a bit of a moot point.

[tvon]

Uber is based in San Francisco, which may be why they asked a San Francisco-based attorney.

[yapcguy]

I am not a lawyer but if anyone out there is...

If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one? What if the e-mail trail reveals similar activity in multiple states directed by managers in San Francisco?

[at-fates-hands]

Not necessarily.

Charges can brought in multiple states at the same time, for the same crime which doesn't violate fifth amendment protection of double jeopardy. It's known as the dual sovereignty doctrine.

The FBI only gets involved in the most serious of cases such as organized crime, drugs, gangs, terrorism, cyber crime, etc.

What the FBI investigates: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

Info on the dual sovereignty doctrine: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in...

[dragonwriter]

> If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one?

No, though that may make it so that a federal crime (e.g., wire fraud) was committed in addition to any state crime that was committed.

[Pxtl]

Well, I assume they only had a California lawyer handy and he could only speak to California's laws for reference.

[eridius]

It's pretty clear they were doing this to harvest phone numbers of drivers (why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?) rather than any attempt to actually disrupt Gett's business. I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud", as that's a very serious allegation.

[avalaunch]

They were booking rides without the intent of actually taking or paying for those rides. How is that not fraud? The fact that they were doing it to mine for phone numbers doesn't make it less fraudulent. That'd be like saying it's ok to order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut without the intent of paying for them because you were simply trying to figure out who the drivers are.

[eridius]

They're paying cancellation fees. If I order a bunch of pizzas from Pizza Hut in order to find out who the drivers were, and paid for them, then there's no issue. Even though I don't intend on eating the pizzas, I still paid for the service. In this case, Uber is paying the cancellation fees for the privilege of booking, then cancelling, a Gett ride.

[avalaunch]

If you order pizzas and pay for them, you're completely the transaction as expected. If you order a car from a car service and then cancel it, you're not. The fact that a cancellation fee exists doesn't give you the right to use the system in such an unintended manner.

A better analogy than the pizza analogy might be a "customer" repeatedly buying clothes with the intent to wear and then return them. Despite the fact that there is a return policy in place, the fact that the customer never intended on keeping any of the clothes makes his behavior fraudulent.

[eridius]

There is nothing illegal about repeatedly buying clothes, then returning. If I do that enough the store may bar me from the premises for being exceedingly annoying, but they certainly can't charge me with anything.

[yapcguy]

Another example is a cafe.

Get a bunch of people to repeatedly queue up but when they get to the counter decide they don't want to order anything.

Just the sight of a long queue outside the door is going to put off legit customers

Clearly Uber are engaging in activities to disrupt and cause harm to the business of their competitor.

[avalaunch]

I said it was fraudulent, which it definitely is. Whether or not it fits the legal definition of fraud is debatable.

[aidenn0]

Some localities do have laws forbidding buying something with the intent to return it.

[goldenkey]

With the intent to disrupt business. They can be easily sued for this practice. This isn't a consumer doing so, this is a company having their employees vehemently attack a competitor.

[yapcguy]

Exactly.

Legit customers can't book cars because they're busy and when they do the drivers might bail because they think its yet another fake order.

Screw Uber. Theyre not a tech start-up, they're an illegal car service masquerading as a tech company.

[brianmcdonough]

Thank you for making it clear why this practice is bad corporate practice for those who are not as moral in their perspective. Uber seems hell bent on becoming the only game in town and then raping their customers during peak periods.

[Dylan16807]

It's not fraud to order a bunch of pizzas and then cancel the order 30 seconds later before they even put anything on the first piece of dough.

It's dickish, but no actual harm is done.

And if it cost $1 per cancelled pizza they would actually profit off of it.

[hangonhn]

"It's dickish, but no actual harm is done."

In the case of a real restaurant, yes there is harm done. The cost of taking an order is not zero for people: it cost people time and real customers may not be served in time. Maybe not for this particular case with Gett since they're automated.

[Dylan16807]

It's still not fraud to call someone and waste their time for a while. See also: telemarketers

[hangonhn]

Fraud is only one type of harm. The bigger question is whether there is harm, regardless of type. In the restaurant case, there is harm even though it's not fraud. In Gett's case it's not really fraud either but one can argue there was harm done as well. Information can confer competitive advantage. The question that remains is who's fault it is. It's kind of dumb on Gett's part to leave themselves wide open. I'm not experienced enough in jurisprudence to really determine that.

[kd0amg]

Wasting their time via deception might be though.

[avalaunch]

What you describe is a hoax, contrasted to fraud in that there was no intent of gain on the perpetrator's part and that no harm was caused (debatable in your example). What Uber did, and in my example, there was both intent of gain and harm.

You could argue that there was no harm to Gett because of the cancellation fees, but that's only true if the cancellation fees are greater than the cost they incurred which may or may not be true.

[Dylan16807]

It hinges on whether there was harm done. I strongly doubt there was harm.

Or at least intentional harm. Such as if they meant to cancel immediately but didn't.

[6d0debc071]

> It hinges on whether there was harm done.

Are you a lawyer familiar with fraud related laws in New York?

IANAL. However, in the UK I suspect it would hinge on whether you gained or whether there was harm. Fraud by false representation is - IRC - defined in those sorts of terms in the Fraud Act 2006.

Point being this stuff varies and doesn't necessarily align with what we might intuit it does.

[ryguytilidie]

I don't feel like the fact that they defrauded the drivers/service because they wanted their information from them makes this any less fraudulent...

[doktrin]

> I would be rather hesitant to call this "fraud"

How exactly is this not fraud?

[HillRat]

I'd say it's more of "tortious interference." If true, this was -- to paraphrase Fouché -- worse than a crime, it was stupid. It seems that Uber is so blasé about the tidal flood of lawsuits it's facing that it is willing to court more.

[untog]

(why does Gett give out their drivers' phone numbers?)

Presumably so that the customer can contact the driver if they need to pass on instructions about a specific place to be picked up, etc.

[eridius]

Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you.

Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the duration of the trip. I havent' checked but I doubt anybody actually does this. And in the absence of this level of anonymity, I would at the very least expect a car service app to require you to place the call before giving you the phone # of the other person.

[aetherson]

I work for Flywheel, an Uber competitor. We do not expose driver or passenger phone numbers to either party at all (the exact mechanism is a little different than what you propose, but the effect is the same). Driver can call passenger and passenger can call driver and neither will ever see the other person's actual number.

[eridius]

Good for you. Since you're doing this, and according to yid, Uber is also doing something similar, I'm even more surprised that Gett is not only exposing real phone #'s, but doing so without even requiring a phone call to be placed.

[yid]

> Uber handles this by having a button in their app that initiaates the phone call. You can't find out a driver's number without actually calling them. Similarly, they can't find out yours without actually calling you.

Actually, I think they use some sort of phone proxy service. I once looked at my driver's phone and he had a totally different number listed for me that I did not recognize (same area code though).

[eridius]

Oh? So it sounds like Uber is doing something similar to what I proposed then. That's good.

[asnyder]

If you don't mind sharing, I would love to know what sort of thing is used for this. Normally I would think Twilio but that's more of create your own number and pay per minute.

[rahimnathwani]

Theoretically, if the company can get a bunch of phone #s, they could even completely anonymize it by assigning two temporary numbers (one to driver, one to passenger) and call-forwarding them for the duration of the trip.

You wouldn't even need a bunch of phone numbers. Assuming caller ID works correctly, you can use that to decide where to route the call. Customer A is calling? Route to Driver X? Driver Y is calling? Route to Customer B.

[eridius]

Well, that just cuts it down from 2 numbers to 1, and it assumes that the caller ID hasn't been futzed with. Certainly plausible, just perhaps slightly less reliable.

[rahimnathwani]

No, it cuts it down from many many numbers (2 numbers per driver/passenger pair) to 1.

I haven't seen an instance of caller ID being 'futzed' with in domestic calls from domestic mobile phone numbers, but I agree it could happen for people roaming internationally.

[samolang]

And they paid cancellation fees.

[epipsychidion]

If drivers keep getting requests cancelled, they will be less prompt and enthusiastic about actual ones. The cancellation fee is calculated on the assumption that frequent orders will not be deliberately placed to be subsequently cancelled.

[samolang]

I agree that they may have violated the spirit of the contract. But the contract specifically handles the case of cancelling an order (including some restitution), so I would hardly consider it fraud.

[epipsychidion]

Running into the path of a moving car isn't fraud? End result is the same for when it's an accident.

[samolang]

Running into the path of a moving car is only fraud if you claim the driver is at fault. If you admit responsibility and pay for any damages then it is not fraud.

[techreporter]

They claim they paid cancellation fees. Gett claims the charges are pending. At this point it would be stupid of them to not let those charges through though.

[sitkack]

If Uber wasn't a douche, they would have just booked rides in the cars and personally talked to the drivers. Absolutely no harm in that. What they did shows an utter lack of tact.

[mgulaid]

good point.. lack of class

[ryguytilidie]

...after what they were doing was exposed.

[pc86]

No, they paid cancellation fees because you get charged when you cancel. This wasn't "Oh, sorry, here's $10."

[ryguytilidie]

The fact that it said "they ultimately paid the fees...some of which are still pending" made me feel like these weren't immediate, automatic charges.

[encoderer]

It's not automatic. I've had to legitimately cancel before and have never been charged a fee.

[pc86]

Have you cancelled on the day of or within just a few hours of the scheduled pickup time?

[enjo]

What is Gett's cancellation policy?

[pkinsky]

I assume there's something in Gett's terms of service prohibiting what Uber was doing. If so, they're liable under the CFAA.

[baddox]

> No, this is unacceptable. This sort of fraudulent behavior deserves consequences larger than "hey, stop that".

If you're suggesting that they should be prosecuted, then we can argue that, but Uber is not able to prosecute members of its team. What do you expect Uber to do, other than to stop the behavior?

[potatolicious]

Uber is fully within their rights to levy punishments (up to and including firing) for members of its team.

In this forum we talk constantly about onerous government regulations and the long arm of the law. There are many perfectly legal ways companies can punish or sanction its employees, and IMO it's an eminently good idea to do so.

If you don't want to the government getting all up in your face you're going to have to self-regulate to some degree. Punishing employees who behave unethically is a part of this.

[techreporter]

Another commenter below said he knows an Uber employee in Boston where they not only employ the same tactics with other competitors but also have names for it such as ShopLyfting and SideSwiping.

It looks like this is Uber's culture and not just a few employees in one office behaving unethically. The article also mentions that everyone from the General Manager down were involved in this. The GM is basically the head for a given city. That tells you how far up the chain the lack of ethics goes.

[ig1]

Well Uber can dismiss the employees.

But Gett can take Uber to court, and possibly make a criminal complaint.

[jtbigwoo]

I can't believe they haven't fired the employees that did it and the management that allowed it.

[jessedhillon]

Fire people?

[jackgavigan]

Well, they say you can't make an omelette without breaking some legs.

[GarrettBeck]

There are consequences larger than "hey, stop that."

Even Uber's legal representation said they could be liable for damages:

If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages.

[aetherson]

That's not Uber's legal representation, it's "San Francisco-based attorney Drexel Bradshaw." Nowhere does it suggest that Bradshaw is associated with Uber. Here is Mr. Bradshaw's profile page from his law firm (from a cursory Google search): http://www.bradshawassociates.com/Bio/DrexelBradshaw.php

[debt]

You hire a sales team to sell your product. They're the least invested in the overall business, they have the highest turnover rate of any other department. Typically, they're young, inexperienced, right out of college. Typically, this isn't their only job. Most care less about the overall viability of the company or the company image then they do about making a sale and a commission.

The balance between sales and the long-term vision of a business is hard. You need people that are driven but are interested in sticking it out. Sales has a high-level of burn out so it's hard to get someone driven and interested in staying long-term at a company.

This Uber thing is salespeople doing whatever it takes to get that commission. Uber maybe needs to reinvent their sales incentive structure the same way they've reinvented ridesharing.

[smirksirlot]

When the Uber NYC General Manager is doing it I would hardly put it on sales.

[jhonovich]

"Uber maybe needs to reinvent their sales incentive structure the same way they've reinvented ridesharing."

They don't need to reinvent anything here. Lots of companies have salespeople with no experience and a high turnover rate. Yet they rarely directly sabotage their competitors.

[chourobin]

Same here, good bye Uber.