• Home
  • News
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia
Uber Technologies

Why the Dismissed Uber ‘Hell’ Program Lawsuit Could Come Back

By
Kirsten Korosec
Kirsten Korosec
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Kirsten Korosec
Kirsten Korosec
Down Arrow Button Icon
August 31, 2017, 6:55 PM ET

A federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against Uber for its secret ‘Hell’ program that the ride-hailing company used to track drivers working for rival Lyft. And while it’s a win for Uber, there is a chance it could come back.

On Thursday, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court of Northern California, granted Uber’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. This means the plaintiff, in this case a former Lyft driver who filed the lawsuit in April, can file an amended complaint. The deadline to file an amended complaint is Sept. 14, according to court documents.

Uber declined to comment on the case. Caleb Marker, a partner with Zimmerman Reed, a firm representing the plaintiff suing Uber, told Coins2Day they intend to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit filed April 24 by Michael Gonzales followed an article by The Information that revealed Uber had a secret program called “Hell” that allowed the company to use software to track how many Lyft drivers were available for new rides and their location. The secret spyware, which was used between 2014 and 2016, also showed Uber employees which drivers worked for Uber and Lyft. The information was used to help Uber entice those drivers away from its rival.

The lawsuit was suing Uber for damages for alleged unlawful invasion of privacy and interception of electronic communications and images in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and common law damages for invasion of privacy.

However, Uber countered those claims in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing among other points that the information was “readily accessible to the general public,” that Gonzales failed to show Uber eavesdropped on confidential communications,” and because he did not allege any injury or any loss of money or property.

About the Author
By Kirsten Korosec
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Coins2Day 500
  • Global 500
  • Coins2Day 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Coins2Day Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Coins2Day Brand Studio
  • Coins2Day Analytics
  • Coins2Day Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Coins2Day
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Coins2Day Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Coins2Day Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.