You are on page 1of 13

Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 11

Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357


Lead Attorney for Plaintiff
Olsen Daines PC
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
michael@underdoglawyer.com
Direct 503-201-4570

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

MEDHI SEIFIAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-1879


individually and on
behalf of all others, CLASS ACTION
ALLEGATION
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

v. Negligence

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, 28 U.S.C. 1332


INC.,
Demand for Jury Trial
Defendant.

COMPLAINT Page 1 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 2 of 11

1.

THE PARTIES

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a billion-dollar global

transportation technology company and a Delaware corporation. On

November 21, 2017, Uber announced for the first time that a data

breach in late 2016 compromised the personal information of 57 million

Uber users. Rather than promptly notify the public of its breach as

Oregon law required, Uber instead attempted to pay its hackers

$100,000 in hopes of keeping the breach under wraps.

2.

Plaintiff Medhi Seifian is an individual consumer residing in the

Portland, Oregon area who provided his personal information to Uber

in order to purchase its transportation services in 2016. He later had

his information compromised by Uber, causing him identity theft and

credit harm. He could have prevented this harm had Uber notified him

that his information was compromised in the most expeditious manner

possible as required by Oregon law. He is not aware that his personal

information has been compromised by any source other than Uber.

COMPLAINT Page 2 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 3 of 11

3.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 because the

parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy

for the Oregon class exceeds $240 million exclusive of penalties. Venue

is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the bulk of Oregon consumers

with personal information stored by Uber live in the Portland area.

4.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff files this complaint as a class action on behalf of an

estimated 500,000 Oregon consumers harmed by Ubers failure to

adequately protect their personal information. This complaint requests

Uber provide fair compensation in an amount that will ensure every

consumer harmed by its data breach will not be out-of-pocket for the

costs of independent third-party credit repair and monitoring services.

This complaints allegations are based on personal knowledge as to

plaintiffs conduct and made on information and belief as to the acts of

others.

5.

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Uber collected and stored personal

and credit information from plaintiff and thousands of other Oregon

consumers who used its transportation services.

COMPLAINT Page 3 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 4 of 11

6.

Uber owed a legal duty to plaintiff to use reasonable care to

protect his personal information from unauthorized access by third

parties. Uber knew that its failure to protect plaintiffs personal

information from unauthorized access would cause serious risks of

credit harm and identify theft for years to come.

7.

On November 21, 2017, Uber announced for the first time that

its data system had been hacked in late 2016 by unauthorized third

parties, subjecting plaintiff to credit harm and identify theft and other

economic losses. Uber unjustifiably failed to timely notify consumers of

its data breach in the most expeditious manner possible, and only chose

to notify consumers of its breach over a year later, after the damage to

their credit was already done.

8.

In an attempt to increase profits, Uber negligently failed to

maintain adequate technological safeguards to protect plaintiffs

information from unauthorized access by hackers. Hackers targeted

plaintiffs information for the sole purpose of using the information to

commit fraud. Uber knew and should have known that failure to

maintain adequate technological safeguards would eventually result in

a massive data breach. Uber could have and should have substantially

COMPLAINT Page 4 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 5 of 11

increased the amount of money it spent to protect against cyber-attacks

but chose not to. Consumers should not have to bear the expense caused

by Ubers negligent failure to safeguard their personal information

from cyber-attackers.

9.

As a direct result of Ubers negligence as alleged in this

complaint, plaintiff suffered economic losses including the actual loss

of his personal information to hackers seeking to use his information

for fraudulent illegal purposes, and economic losses including lost

credit opportunities, and suffered economic loss, confusion and wasted

time monitoring and responding to fraudulent credit activities. The

economic losses Uber caused consumers throughout Oregon could have

been mitigated had Uber notified them that their information was

compromised in the most expeditious manner possible. Ubers failure

to timely notify Oregon consumers of its data breach also constituted

negligence.

COMPLAINT Page 5 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 6 of 11

10.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff files this complaint as an Oregon class action lawsuit.

The class consists of:

1. Consumers like plaintiff who reside in Oregon and who had

personal information collected and stored by Uber prior to

October 1, 2016, and who were subject to economic losses

including risk of data loss and credit harm and identity theft as

a result of Ubers negligent data breach, and who could have

prevented or mitigated their harm had Uber notified them that

their information was compromised in the most expeditious

manner possible.

11.

Excluded from the class are all attorneys for the class, officers

and members of Uber, including officers and members of any entity

with an ownership interest in Uber, any judge who sits on the case, and

all jurors and alternate jurors who sit on the case.

12.

The exact number of aggrieved Oregon consumers, estimated at

500,000, can be determined based on Ubers customer data.

COMPLAINT Page 6 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 7 of 11

13.

Every aggrieved consumer suffered economic losses as alleged in

this complaint directly and proximately caused by Ubers negligent

failure to adequately protect its database from unauthorized access by

third-party hackers and failure to notify consumers that their

information was compromised in the most expeditious manner possible.

14.

The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Upon

information and belief, the Oregon class includes 500,000 consumers

based on Oregons population and Ubers initial estimate that 57

million of its users were affected by the breach.

15.

Common questions of fact and law predominate over any

questions affecting only individual class members. Common questions

include whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to equitable

relief, whether Uber acted negligently, and whether plaintiff and class

members are entitled to recover money damages.

16.

Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the class because

each suffered risk of loss or credit harm or identity theft or economic

losses caused by Ubers negligent failure to safeguard their personal

information, the injuries suffered by plaintiff and the class members

COMPLAINT Page 7 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 8 of 11

are identical (i.e. the costs to monitor and repair their credit through a

third-party service for at least 24 months, the amounts of economic

losses caused by identity theft and credit harm and unauthorized use),

and plaintiffs claim for relief is based upon the same legal theories as

are the claims of the other class members. Plaintiff will fairly and

adequately protect and represent the interests of the class because his

claim is typical of the claims of the class, he is represented by nationally

known and locally respected attorneys who have experience handling

class action litigation and consumer protection cases who are qualified

and competent, and who will vigorously prosecute this litigation, and

their interests are not antagonistic or in conflict with the interests of

the class.

17.

A class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient

adjudication of this case because common questions of law and fact

predominate over other factors affecting only individual members, as

far as plaintiff knows, no class action that purports to include

consumers protected by Oregons data breach notification law suffering

the same injury has been commenced in Oregon, individual class

members have little interest in controlling the litigation, due to the

high cost of actions, the relatively small amounts of damages, and

because plaintiff and his attorneys will vigorously pursue the claims.

COMPLAINT Page 8 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 9 of 11

The forum is desirable because the bulk of consumers in Oregon who

suffered injury caused by Ubers negligence reside in the Portland

metropolitan area. A class action will be an efficient method of

adjudicating the claims of the class members who have suffered

relatively small damages, as a result of the same conduct by Uber. In

the aggregate, class members have claims for relief that are significant

in scope relative to the expense of litigation. The availability of Ubers

customer data will facilitate proof of class claims, processing class

claims, and distributions of any recoveries.

COMPLAINT Page 9 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 10 of 11

18.

CLASS CLAIM FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENCE

As alleged in this complaint, Uber undertook care of personal

information belonging to plaintiff and the putative Oregon class, then

breached its legal duty by failing to maintain adequate technological

safeguards, falling below the standard of care in the technological

industry, directly and proximately causing foreseeable risk of data loss

and credit harm and identity theft and other economic losses, in

amounts to be decided by the jury. Ubers failure to comply with laws

requiring it to notify consumers of its data breach in the most

expeditious manner possible constituted negligence per se.

19.

Plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to equitable relief in

the form of an accounting of exactly how their personal information was

accessed without authorization by third parties, restitution, and unless

agreed upon by Uber, an order to preserve all documents and

information (and electronically stored information) pertaining to this

case.

20.

Demand for jury trial.

COMPLAINT Page 10 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 11 of 11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and the proposed class as

follows:

A. Unless agreed upon by Uber, an order to preserve all documents

and information (and electronically stored information)

pertaining to this case,

B. An order certifying this matter as a class action,

C. Judgment against Uber for fair compensation in an amount to be

decided by the jury, and costs,

D. And other relief the Court deems necessary.

November 22, 2017

RESPECTFULLY FILED,

s/ Michael Fuller
Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357
Lead Attorney for Plaintiff
Olsen Daines PC
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204
michael@underdoglawyer.com
Direct 503-201-4570

COMPLAINT Page 11 of 11
Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1-1 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 1
JS 44 (Rev. 09/11) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided
by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS


Medhi Seifian Uber Technologies, Inc.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Multnomah County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Michael Fuller, US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204, 503-201-4570

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff)
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6


Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 410 Antitrust
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veterans Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation Act
Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 896 Arbitration
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting Sentence or Defendant) Agency Decision
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment Habeas Corpus: 871 IRSThird Party 950 Constitutionality of
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ 530 General 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 462 Naturalization Application
Employment 550 Civil Rights 463 Habeas Corpus -
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee
Other 560 Civil Detainee - (Prisoner Petition)
448 Education Conditions of 465 Other Immigration
Confinement Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)


Transferred from
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 another district 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. 1332
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Negligence
VII. REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

11/22/2017 s/ Michael Fuller


FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE


Case 3:17-cv-01879-AC Document 1-2 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 1

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the
District
__________ DistrictofofOregon
__________

MEDHI SEIFIAN
)
)
Plaintiff
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1879
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. )
)
Defendant
)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendants name and address) Uber Technologies, Inc.


c/o registered agent The Corporation Trust Company
Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange St.
Wilmington, DE 19801

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Medhi Seifian
c/o attorney Michael Fuller
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
Portland, Oregon 97204

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk