logo
Uber called out over $35 response to 'unacceptable' act: 'It's a problem'

Uber called out over $35 response to 'unacceptable' act: 'It's a problem'

Yahoo20-02-2025
An Australian woman who claims she was denied service by rideshare giant Uber an incredible 32 times in less than two years is urging people with disabilities across the country to "stand together" and demand action. She has called on the government to intervene, emphasising that discrimination is unacceptable and must not be tolerated.
Victoria woman Paula Hobley, who is blind, said that between March 2021 and November 2022, she was rejected by dozens of drivers on the platform, who took issue with her guide dog. Speaking to Yahoo News, Hobley shared the deep emotional toll the ordeal took on her mental health and urged others who have experienced the same to come forward.
Hobley is now suing Uber in the Federal Court, claiming drivers broke disability discrimination laws by refusing to pick her up. "It's made me extremely frustrated and angry," Hobley told Yahoo. "And, it's limited the things that I do because I weigh up the costs of the stress of the refusals, against the benefit of doing the activity.
"It means there are times I don't attend appointments that I would benefit from or resort to doing things online that would be better to do in person."
Hobley claimed she repeatedly reported the refusals to Uber — but the pattern continued. She said it's now made her wary of travelling at night, over fears for her safety should she be left stranded alone.
Heavily reliant on taxis and Ubers, Hobley said a trip that would take her just 10 minutes in a car would comparatively last over an hour on public transport. When she raised the issue with Uber, she was offered a shocking $35 in compensation.
"Uber often provided me with $35 of Uber cash per cancellation — sometimes there were more than one cancellation on a day — and [only] sometimes they refunded me," she said.
"Their written responses outlined that the Uber drivers I complained about wouldn't be able to drive for Uber again until they completed some retraining. But they wouldn't give me specifics regarding the outcome for individual drivers."
As for the individual drivers, Hobley claimed her refusals ranged from "outright cancellations" to messages directing her to book an Uber Pet — a service with an inflated fee.
"My service dog is not a pet. She has a right to access public places and services," she said.
Hobley, represented by the Justice and Equity Centre, filed a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission against Uber for alleged discrimination. After unsuccessful conciliation, she made the decision to take Uber the Federal Court.
Under Australia's Disability Discrimination Act, businesses cannot deny service based on disability, including refusal due to an assistance dog. While Uber drivers can be fined for such refusals, enforcement relies on individuals lodging formal complaints.
Penalties vary by state, with Victoria's fine as low as $480.
"I now avoid going out at night if I have to rely on a rideshare or taxi service because there's a risk I won't be able to get home safely," Hobley said. "I'm not asking for special treatment — I just want drivers to do their job and Uber to enforce that. I need to be able to travel without stress and considerable pre-planning, just like most people do.
"This is a right, not a privilege."
Jonathon Hunyor, lawyer and CEO of the Justice and Equity Centre said Uber makes massive profits, and should be held accountable. In the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024, Uber reported a global net income of US$9.86 billion, a significant increase from the previous year's net income of US$1.89 billion.
"Uber is a massive international company making significant profits from providing a service in Australia. It has a responsibility to ensure its service complies with Australian laws," he said.
"The law in Australia is clear: A business providing a service cannot discriminate against a person with a disability. This sort of repeated conduct by Uber's drivers shows it's a problem the company needs to fix. Uber needs to ensure that people with disability can use its service like everyone else."
'Horrible' reality millions face every time they board a flight
Frustrated wheelchair user unleashes over 'inconsiderate' act
Aussie business apologises for 'outrageous' video mocking disabilities
Hobley now is calling for other Australians with disabilities who may have experienced the same thing to come forward and join together in fighting back.
"If this is happening to me, it's happening to people with other kinds of assistance dogs too," she lamented. "It shouldn't be up to people with disability to have to make complaints after they are discriminated against.
"There is power in making complaints. If we band together and make complaints it sends a clear message to government and companies like Uber that this behaviour is unacceptable and won't be tolerated."
Yahoo News Australia contacted Uber with regard to Hobley's claims. A spokesperson told us that the distress of being refused service because of an assistance animal "is not something we take lightly".
"We have strong policies, tools and driver education modules in place to ensure drivers understand their legal obligation to provide service to riders with assistance animals," the spokesperson said.
Uber stated it is committed to preventing service refusals and works with industry experts like Vision Australia to improve its policies. Drivers must comply with laws regarding assistance animals and receive training upon signup, with ongoing education. A first refusal requires passing a knowledge check to continue driving, while a second results in permanent removal from the platform.
Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@yahoonews.com.
You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tesla Robotaxi pulls ahead of Waymo in San Francisco
Tesla Robotaxi pulls ahead of Waymo in San Francisco

Miami Herald

time6 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Tesla Robotaxi pulls ahead of Waymo in San Francisco

Tesla (TSLA) may have started the robotaxi race running behind Waymo, but it has taken the lead in the pair's hometown of San Francisco. Silicon Valley, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, is the home of both Tesla and Waymo, as well as Waymo's parent company, Alphabet. After years of beta testing in the city, Waymo finally made Waymo One (think Uber, but for autonomous vehicles) available to the public in June 2024. Related: Alphabet's Waymo flexes on Tesla Robotaxi with latest update Waymo had nearly 300,000 signups at launch, which has only grown since. As of July 2025, Waymo One is available 24/7 to customers in Los Angeles, Phoenix, as well as the San Francisco Bay Area. Waymo partners with Uber in Austin and Atlanta. Waymo also says it has plans to expand to Miami and Washington, D.C., in 2026. It has been testing in Miami in since December. Waymo's current fleet features over 1,500 vehicles spread across its four current host cities, but by next year, it expects to more than double its fleet with more than 2,000 new additions. Meanwhile, Tesla just launched in Austin in June. But on Thursday, July 31, Tesla officially launched Robotaxi in San Francisco. San Franciscans can hail Robotaxis through the app, but just like the service in Austin, there is a human "safety monitor" in the passenger seat making sure everything is working properly. Thanks to the months of safe testing, Waymo One users in San Francisco get the added privacy of having a truly autonomous riding experience without another human present. But while Tesla is behind in some areas, it's starting off life in the Bay Area with a huge advantage over Waymo. A user on X (the former Twitter) and Tesla enthusast @JoeTegtmeyer posted a map with the Tesla Robotaxi's coverage area overlaid on Waymo's. It doesn't take a cartogropher to see which company has the advantage. So even though Tesla Robotaxi is months behind Waymo One and still needs human training wheels, the Robotaxi has a lot more space to roam in the Bay Area. Earlier this year, Tesla said that its FSD system has driven a cumulative total of 3.6 billion miles, nearly triple the 1.3 billion cumulative miles it reported a year ago. More Tesla Robotaxi Tesla's newest Robotaxi rival has experence and deep pocketsTesla robotaxi safety called into question after frightening videoTeslas faces its most serious court battle in years But according to Musk, the FSD in regular Tesla vehicles is a lower grade than the technology Robotaxi uses. So this more advanced technology has a long way to go to catch up to the real-world traffic miles Waymo has driven. While Tesla Robotaxi is just getting off the ground in Austin and San Francisco, Alphabet's Waymo has been testing its cars on U.S. streets since at least 2018. Since then, Waymo robotaxis have driven more than 100 million miles autonomously, doubling its mileage from just six months ago, according to a company update. "Reaching 100 million fully autonomous miles represents years of methodical progress now accelerating into rapid, responsible scaling," said Waymo Chief Product Officer Saswat Panigrahi. "As we expand to serve more riders in more cities, we'll encounter new challenges that will continue strengthening our service." Waymo had reported traveling 71 million miles autonomously in March, after reaching 50 million at the end of the year. In May, Waymo said its Waymo One app registers over a quarter of a million paid weekly trips across Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Austin. Related: Tesla fans flock to social media to celebrate Robotaxi launch The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

First Tesla Robotaxi Rides In California May Risk DMV Shutdown
First Tesla Robotaxi Rides In California May Risk DMV Shutdown

Forbes

time10 hours ago

  • Forbes

First Tesla Robotaxi Rides In California May Risk DMV Shutdown

Tesla has begin limited operation of a ride service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The first video by a passenger shows that it is running a similar software system to the one used in Austin TX, with a safety driver, in this case located behind the wheel rather than in the passenger seat. While the saftey driver keeps hands on the wheel, as recommended with Tesla's consumer version of FSD, in this ride they do not appear to control the vehicle, and it drives the trips, including pick-up and drop-off, without input from the Tesla employee. The problem is, this sort of more fully automated ride may run afoul of more subtle complexities in California self-driving vehicle regulations which led to the DMV shutting down testing by Uber's self-driving research unit ATG several years ago. Tesla is using a carve-out in the California laws which state that they do not cover 'driver assist' tools, sometimes referred to as 'Level 2' in specifications from NHTSA and the Society of Automotive Engineers. The California regulations require a large set of permits from both the DMV and the public utilities commission to operate a taxi service based on self-driving vehicles. Seven different permits are needed, and Tesla has only 2 and has not applied for the others. By declaring to the DMV that this is not a self-driving car, but rather a driver assist car that requires a human driver behind the wheel and in control, they hope to bypass the need for those permits. The line, however, between Tesla FSD, which is indeed correctly sold as a driver-assist system and this 'robotaxi' version is challenging. Just when does a system switch from being driver-assist to prototype self-driving? For now, the DMV is accepting that and stated: The Regulations and Driver Assist In 2011-12, I participated in the drafting of the first drafting of the nation's first laws regulating self-driving in Nevada and California. The first laws only enabled testing, and were prompted by Google, the only company trying to do tests. Representatives from big automakers quickly joined the discussions, and they were concerned that these regulations might interfere with some of the systems they sold, such as adaptive cruise controls, and lanekeeping systems, which are known as 'driver assist' tools because a human driver is responsible for the vehicle, and the system only assists. They got the carve-out they wanted. In 2016, Uber was developing self-driving at its ill-fated 'ATG' division. The head of the division, Anthony Levandowski, who had represented Google in the drafting of these laws, began testing their vehicles on California roads. He declared that because the vehicles had a human safety driver on board, they were driver assist, and Uber didn't need a self-driving testing permit. The DMV would have none of it, and threatened Uber with pulling its vehicles from the roads, cancelling their licence plates. Uber complied and got the testing permits. Later, Uber ATG would have a fatal crash. It shut down operations and the team was purchased by Aurora. (Aurora just announced this week that they have begun 'driverless' trucking at night in Texas, though also with an employee behind the wheel.) The DMV has not had enough time to look at the new service that Tesla has deployed. The Tesla robotaxi stack definitely tries to perform the complete robotaxi task, including pick-up and drop-off. It is not ready from a safety standpoint. Other data suggests the Tesla FSD system needs human intervention around every 400 miles, Tesla has said they now have reached near 10,000 miles, but their operations in Austin suggest otherwise. Either way, to make a working robotaxi requires needing a serious intervention every million miles or so to meet Musk's stated goal of 'much safer than a human' and so Tesla still has very far to go and the safety driver is needed. At the same time, Uber ATG was very, very, very far behind this quality level. At the time of their fatality they needed safety driver takeover about every 15 miles. Because their safety driver disregarded her job and watched a video instead of the road, the vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian. Uber ATG never took passengers, so their vehicle also was not capable of doing the things like summoning, pick-up and drop-off that the Tesla vehicle does. It seems very unlikely that an analysis of the Tesla Robotaxi system in comparison to the Uber ATG system would class the Tesla system as less of a prototype self-driving system. Except for one strange irony. DMV Lawsuit Over FSD Name The DMV is currently in court suing to remove Tesla from the roads in general for deceptive labeling, but in the opposite direction. Tesla calls its consumer product 'Full Self Driving (Supervised)' and formerly called it 'Beta.' The DMV has been declaring that Tesla's system is not self-driving (and indeed it isn't) and that they should not be using a name that suggests it is. Tesla robotaxi isn't self-driving either, but like Uber ATG's system, it definitely is intended to be. Uber ATG was made to get the permits because they were trying to build a robotaxi, even though it wasn't ready yet. Tesla is very explicitly calling their system a robotaxi, though it also isn't ready yet. The DMV will have to make a decision and possibly alter its policies. Product Quality At present the service seems very limited. The influencer who got the early ride above got the same car every time he asked for a ride, and appeared to be followed by a Cybertruck chase car, so it was carefully monitored. However, there's no reason Tesla can't put this into operation with a safety driver. Indeed, it's no surprise that Tesla could immediately allow a larger service area than Waymo does for their actual self-driving robotaxi service. Tesla FSD with a supervisor is reasonably safe over most roads in the USA. Other than logistic costs they could offer a service anywhere, though of course it costs as much as a limo service to operate and so is not commercially interesting. You can, and other companies have, offered test robotaxi services with safety drivers even though the robotaxi software still needs 100x or 1,000x improvement in quality in order to work. While Perhaps it only needs a 2x improvement and is thus 'almost ready' it is not easy for outsiders to judge this quality, you need statistics over large nubmers of miles, which Tesla does not release. The robotaxi system, which has been seen in Austin, has added impressive capabilities above the point to point driving abilities that Tesla FSD has shown for some time. Most notably it is doing pick-up and drop-off on aribitrary curbsides, which took many teams some effort to develop, though again, they made it work without a safety driver, which is vastly harder. In pondering why Tesla has released this service, this may be the main reason--it already has been doing lots of testing of the FSD driving system, including in the Bay Area (the rider's route included Tesla HQ after all.) It is the PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off) which is new and needs testing.

If You'd Invested $1,000 in Lucid Stock 4 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
If You'd Invested $1,000 in Lucid Stock 4 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

If You'd Invested $1,000 in Lucid Stock 4 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today

Key Points Investors who got into the Lucid mania of 2021 have seen almost all of their capital wiped out. Lucid just bagged a massive deal and is making an effort to turn its business around. 10 stocks we like better than Lucid Group › Lucid Group (NASDAQ: LCID) was one of the most anticipated initial public offering (IPO) stocks in 2021. The electric-vehicle (EV) industry was red-hot, and Lucid, backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, planned to deliver 20,000 units of its flagship luxury Air sedan, worth nearly 2.2 billion in sales, in 2022. By 2024, Lucid projected its revenue would hit a whopping $9.9 billion. With expectations running high, Lucid stock surged a staggering 280% in 2021. On the day of its listing on July 26, 2021, it closed at $26.83 per share. If you'd invested $1,000 at that price, you'd have expected the stock to become a multibagger by now. Here's what actually happened, though: That investment of $1,000 is worth only $95 today. Ouch. Lucid failed investors miserably. It consistently missed production targets, faced massive cost overruns and cash burn, and struggled to sell its luxury cars. In 2024, it generated only $808 million in revenue and incurred a net loss of $2.7 billion. A lot has happened at Lucid over the past few months though, reigniting investor interest in the beaten-down stock. Why Lucid stock could jump 10x Lucid is expanding production and plans to deliver around 20,000 units of Air sedan and Gravity SUVs this year. It also recently bought Nikola's Coolidge and Phoenix manufacturing facilities. The biggest deal, however, is Lucid's partnership with Uber Technologies (NYSE: UBER). Uber will deploy over 20,000 of Lucid Gravity SUVs equipped with Nuro's Level 4 autonomy software over six years starting in 2026. Uber will also invest millions of dollars in Lucid. While its partnership with Uber validates Lucid's EV technology, management is planning a 1-for-10 reverse stock split. Although there'll be no change in the company's fundamentals, the reverse stock split will boost Lucid stock's price by 10x. Lucid hopes a higher market price will boost its image and attract institutional investors. While that could be true, it shouldn't be your reason to buy Lucid stock -- if you consider buying it all. Should you buy stock in Lucid Group right now? Before you buy stock in Lucid Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Lucid Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $630,291!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,075,791!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,039% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Neha Chamaria has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Uber Technologies. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If You'd Invested $1,000 in Lucid Stock 4 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store