The CPUC said that after the report was released, it was legally bound to investigate the allegations in the interest of public safety. He demanded the date, time and location of each reported assault, as well as a description of the incident and the names and contact details of witnesses and “every person to whom the assault was reported.” He also ordered the names of anyone who worked on the report. He has undertaken to keep all information under seal.
Uber cannot brag about the existence of such a document, but refuse to provide the Commission with the facts surrounding the allegations and the authorship of the document.
Uber opposed the original request on the grounds that disclosing the names of the victims without their consent would violate their rights and cause further trauma. He also argued that there was no guarantee of confidentiality of sensitive data. However, in its latest ruling, the CPUC said it would allow Uber to “provide a code or other signifier rather than a victim’s name.”
In response, Uber suggested that the commission change the rules after the fact. “The CPUC insisted that we publish the full names and Contact information victims of sexual assault without their consent, ”said Uber spokesperson Andrew Hasbun Publish in a report. “A year later, the CPUC changed their mind: we can provide anonymized information – but we also face a fine of $ 59 million for not following the very order that the CPUC fundamentally changed.” .
He added that the order and the fine may deter other companies from issuing similar reports, but the commission disagreed with its decision. “Uber cannot brag about the existence of such a document but refuse to provide the Commission with the facts surrounding the allegations and the authorship of the said document,” the report reads. “The Commission would be in breach of its regulatory responsibilities if it had not conducted a follow-up investigation”