Uber’s arrogance on display in sexual battery case

Uber has rewritten the rules of transportation across the country and around the world. But that doesn’t entitle the ride-hailing company to ignore the rule of law.

When police armed with a search warrant seek company records about a driver suspected of sexually battering a female passenger, one would think Uber would promptly comply.

But the company’s institutional arrogance knows no bounds — even after sexual harassment complaints at the company led to the firing of 20 workers and the resignation last week of company CEO Travis Kalanick.

If Uber wants to fix its rapidly deteriorating public image, it must develop a little humility. But we saw just the opposite last week.

Three days after Kalanick stepped down, a company attorney appeared before a Contra Costa judge trying to argue against turning over records about driver Leonid Beker.

Moraga police are investigating allegations that on May 26, Beker, 42, stopped his car, got in the back seat and restrained and attacked his female customer.

The cops were seeking 90 days of company records about Beker. When Uber refused to cooperate, a prosecutor took the case to Judge Clare Maier, who had signed the search warrant.

Maier chastised the company’s behavior and ordered compliance with the warrant. Finally, on Monday, Uber reportedly turned over the records. But not before an embarrassing, self-indulgent attempt to stonewall.

As reporter Nate Gartrell recounted from Friday’s court session, Uber attorney Candace Kelly tried all sorts of arguments to avoid compliance:

The 90-day period was too long, she claimed. The company didn’t want police calling its customers about Beker. And Uber should only have to turn over records of one-star customer ratings, but not those who gave him five-star reviews.

What malarkey. The 90-day request was quite reasonable. Don’t like police calling your customers? Too bad, they’ve got a job to do and that’s part of the process.

Sure it’s inconvenient, but thoroughly investigating a sexual assault allegation is more important than perhaps making some customers uncomfortable with questions.

Actually, as the judge suggested, most customers should be more concerned about the company resisting a law enforcement investigation of sexual abuse by a driver.

Indeed, why in the world would the company not comply? We understand that Uber would not want to breach the privacy of its drivers or customers by freely handing over data.

But in this case, we’re talking about a specific driver, limited data and a very serious allegation.

Resistance to the warrant was not only legally wrong, it reinforced a growing public sentiment that Uber operates by its own set of rules, rather than the law of the land, and doesn’t care about the safety of its passengers.

Its long-term success depends on proving otherwise.

— San Jose Mercury News,

Digital First Media