| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments We have commitments for network and cloud services, background checks, and other items in the ordinary course of business with varying expiration terms through October 30, 2024. These amounts are determined based on the non-cancelable quantities or termination amounts to which we are contractually obligated. As of June 30, 2021, there were no material changes to our purchase commitments disclosed in the financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020. Contingencies From time to time, we are a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2020 and June 30, 2021, we had recorded aggregate liabilities of $1.8 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, of which $1.3 billion and $1.3 billion relate to non-income tax matters, respectively, in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of our legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable. We are currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, alleged background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. We have existing litigation, including class actions, Private Attorney General Act lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. In connection with the enactment of California State Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), we have received and expect to continue to receive - in California and in other jurisdictions - an increased number of misclassification claims. With respect to our outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against us for amounts in excess of management's expectations, our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. Driver Classification California Attorney General Lawsuit In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity. On May 5, 2020, the California Attorney General, in conjunction with the city attorneys for San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court against Uber and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”). The complaint alleges drivers are misclassified, and seeks an injunction and monetary damages related to the alleged competitive advantage caused by the alleged misclassification of drivers. On August 10, 2020, the Court issued a preliminary injunction order, prohibiting us from classifying drivers as independent contractors and from violating various wage and hour laws. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. On October 22, 2020, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and we filed a petition for review of the decision with the California Supreme Court. The petition was based upon the passage of Proposition 22 by California voters in November 2020, and requested that the Court of Appeal opinion be vacated because AB5’s application to Uber was superseded by Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was a state ballot initiative that provides a framework for drivers that use platforms like ours to qualify as independent workers. As a result of the passage of Proposition 22, Drivers are able to maintain their status as independent contractors under California law, and we and our competitors are required to comply with the provisions of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 went into effect on December 16, 2020. The California Supreme Court declined the petition for review on February 10, 2021. The lawsuit was returned to the trial court following the appellate proceedings on February 22, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the California Attorney General, Uber and Lyft filed a stipulation to dissolve the preliminary injunction with the trial court. On April 16, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting the stipulation. Although the preliminary injunction has been dissolved, the lawsuit remains ongoing relating to claims by the California Attorney General for periods prior to enactment of Proposition 22. We have petitioned to stay this matter pending coordination with other California employment related matters. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Massachusetts Attorney General Lawsuit On July 9, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court against Uber and Lyft. The complaint alleges Drivers are employees, and are entitled to protections under the wage and labor laws. The complaint was served on July 20, 2020 and Uber filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on September 24, 2020, which was denied on March 25, 2021. Our chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Postmates Arbitrations We have received demands or have been threatened with demands for individual arbitration on behalf of Couriers who claim to be misclassified as independent contractors by Postmates. These claims expose us to wage and hour and related liabilities for each individual who has filed a demand. The ultimate resolution of the arbitrations is uncertain and the amount accrued for this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets, with a corresponding increase to goodwill, based on facts and circumstances in existence as of the effective date of the acquisition. Swiss Social Security Reclassification Several Swiss administrative bodies have issued decisions in which they classify Drivers as employees of Uber Switzerland, Rasier Operations B.V. or of Uber B.V. for social security or regulatory purposes. We are challenging each of them before the Social Security and Administrative Tribunals. In April 2020, a ruling was made on a separate matter in Switzerland which reclassified a Driver as an employee. In April 2021, a ruling was made that Uber Switzerland could not be held liable for social security contributions. The ultimate resolution of the social security matters for the other two entities is uncertain and the amount accrued for this matter is recorded within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Aslam, Farrar, Hoy and Mithu v. Uber B.V., Uber Britannia Ltd. and Uber London Ltd. On October 28, 2015, a claim by 25 Drivers, including Mr. Y. Aslam and Mr. J. Farrar, was brought in the UK Employment Tribunal against us asserting that they should be classified as “workers” (a separate category between independent contractors and employees) in the UK rather than independent contractors. The tribunal ruled on October 28, 2016 that Drivers were workers whenever our app is switched on and they are ready and able to take trips based on an assessment of the app in July 2016. The Court of Appeal rejected our appeal in a majority decision on December 19, 2018. We appealed to the Supreme Court and a hearing at the Supreme Court took place in July 2020. On February 19, 2021, the Supreme Court of the UK upheld the tribunal ruling that the Drivers using the app in 2016 were workers for UK employment law purposes. Damages include back pay including holiday pay and minimum wage, which will be assessed and quantified at a future hearing in July 2022. Additional claimants have also filed and each claimant will be required to bring their own separate action to an employment tribunal to determine whether they met the “worker” classification and if so, how much each claimant will be awarded. On March 16, 2021, we announced that more than 70,000 drivers in the UK will be treated as workers, earning at least the National Living Wage when driving with Uber. They will also be paid for holiday time and all those eligible will be automatically enrolled into a pension plan. We have also initiated a settlement process with drivers in the UK to proactively resolve historical claims relating to their classification under UK law. In addition, we expect to be subject to historical pension contributions, which requires our separate engagement with the UK pension regulator. On June 23, 2021, we received a compliance notice from the UK pension regulator to facilitate our auto-enrollment implementation. The pension regulator has confirmed that Uber will be required to pay historic company contributions, but that we are not required to pay the driver component of historic pension contributions. Our portal for drivers to register for a settlement of historical holiday pay and national minimum wage liabilities has closed on July 22, 2021 and we have extended offers to all unrepresented drivers eligible for settlement. While the ultimate resolution of these matters are uncertain, we have recorded an accrual for these matters within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2021. Other Driver Classification Matters Additionally, we have received other lawsuits and governmental inquiries in other jurisdictions, and anticipate future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging our classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. We believe that our current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. State Unemployment Taxes In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against both Rasier and Uber. Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The DOL provided a revised assessment on February 24, 2021. We are engaged in ongoing discussions with the NJDOL about the assessments, though the NJDOL has notified Uber for a hearing on the merits. While the ultimate resolution of this matter is uncertain, we recorded for this matter within accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2021. Google v. Levandowski & Ron; Google v. Levandowski On October 28, 2016, Google filed arbitration demands against each of Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron, former employees of Google, alleging breach of their respective employment agreements with Google, fraud and other state law violations (due to soliciting Google employees and starting a new venture to compete with Google’s business in contravention of their respective employment agreements). Google sought damages, injunctive relief, and restitution. On March 26, 2019, following a hearing, the arbitration panel issued an interim award, finding against each of Google’s former employees and awarding $127 million against Anthony Levandowski and $1 million for which both Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron are jointly and severally liable. In July 2019, Google submitted its request for interest, attorneys fees, and costs related to these claims. The Panel’s Final Award was issued on December 6, 2019. On February 7, 2020, Ron and Google entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release to satisfy the corrected final award in the amount of approximately $10 million. Uber paid Google on behalf of Ron pursuant to an indemnification obligation. A dispute continues to exist with regard to Uber’s alleged indemnification obligation to Levandowski. Whether Uber is ultimately responsible for indemnification of Levandowski depends on the exceptions and conditions set forth in the indemnification agreement. In March 2020, Levandowski pleaded guilty to criminal trade secret charges and filed for bankruptcy. Uber filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy court, and Levandowski additionally asserted a claim against Uber alleging that Uber failed to perform its obligations under an agreement with Otto Trucking, LLC. The indemnification dispute and Levandowski’s claim will proceed in the bankruptcy court. Former President Trump pardoned Levandowski from the trade secret conviction. The ultimate resolution of the matter could result in a possible loss of up to $60 million or more (depending on interest incurred) in excess of the amount accrued. Non-Income Tax Matters We recorded an estimated liability for contingencies related to non-income tax matters and are under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regard to such matters. The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arises from our transactions with Drivers, as well as the tax treatment of certain employee benefits and related employment taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions with Drivers, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales, value added and similar taxes) to services provided, as well as the applicability of withholding tax on payments made to such Drivers. We are involved in a proceeding in the UK involving HMRC, the tax regulator in the UK, which is seeking to classify us as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that we charge Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively. HMRC is considering a number of factors including our contractual Driver, Rider and intercompany arrangements, and HMRC is also expected to consider the U.K. Supreme Court’s February 19, 2021 ruling on Drivers’ worker classification, in determining whether we should be classified as a provider of transportation services. HMRC may update its assessment, which we would then review and discuss with HMRC. If we do not reach a satisfactory resolution after exhausting HMRC’s review and appeals process, we would still be able to argue our case anew in the U.K. Tax Court, which may require the up-front payment to the Tax Court (“pay-to-play”) of any final HMRC assessment to be held in escrow. We continue to believe that we have meritorious defense in these proceedings. Our estimated liability is inherently subjective due to the complexity and uncertainty of these matters and the judicial processes in certain jurisdictions, therefore, the final outcome could be different from the estimated liability recorded. Other Legal and Regulatory Matters We have been subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of our business practices, compliance with antitrust, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. We have investigated many of these matters and we are implementing a number of recommendations to our managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as strengthening our overall governance structure. In many cases, we are unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on our business which could be time consuming, costly to investigate and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact our business, reputation, financial condition and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, we often include standard indemnification provisions in our arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, we may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with their activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by us. In addition, we have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation. |
