On September 18th, Uber, a mobile ridesharing service, filed a lawsuit against Fetch Media, a UK mobile advertising agency, to the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that their mobile ads by Fetch were not as effective as expected. The ads were supposedly nonexistent, nonviewable, or fraudulent ads that caused a great amount of monetary damage to Uber, estimated to be at least $50 million. In their contract, it was stated that Fetch would only get profits on the users who clicked on the ads to download, sign-ups or first trips. However, Uber believes Fetch got credit for app downloads without ever having customers physically tapping on the app. They also didn’t prevent ad fraud and didn’t return rebates they owed to Uber. Simply, Uber is suing …show more content…
Uber’s initial “claim for relief” was the breach of contract. Fetch had apparently disclosed fraudulent info that didn’t accurately and effectively advertise Uber, resulting in millions of dollars of damages. It didn’t reflect the obligations stated in their contract by failing to remediate fraud making Uber pay more in inventory and commission. This in turn is a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as Fetch was allegedly dishonest and more received benefits than stated in the contract. There was also a claim for unjust enrichment since Fetch had claimed more benefits than planned from the contract and didn’t give Uber the same amount of consideration. In regards to tort law, Uber sued for negligent misrepresentation as they had relied on Fetch’s services and spent more than intended. This leads to Uber wanting punitive damages for this misrepresentation. Also, there was an intentional breach of fiduciary duty since Fetch had falsely portrayed their effectiveness in their services and disclosed their reports and
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
Uber tried to remove liability by saying that the driver was not providing services for any passengers at the time of the accident. The lawyer for the family of the young girl argued that even though there were no services being
Plaintiff alleged that Green Tree violated the Truth in Lending Act, by failing to disclose as a finance charge the vendor’s single interest insurance requirement. Also she alleged that Green Tree Financial violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by requiring her to arbitrate her statutory causes for action.
Esquire alleged that Montgomery Ward supplied them with spare parts with a promise that they would buy back any excess
When Vines had caused auditors to investigate further, HealthSouth could have made an easier recovery and experienced less of a downfall if they did not cover up the matter then. HealthSouth did have opportunities to own up to the fraud, had they have taken those opportunities they would have put some ethics into practice. However, the constant denial and the spreading of the knowledge and involvement in this fraud had made it clear there was no ethical framework. They did experience major losses because of this. Customers were not using their services because of their damaged reputation, and HealthSouth also had to cover many legal
Plaintiff website operator, KinderStart.com filed a complaint against Defendant Google, alleging nine claims for relief: violation of the right to free speech under the United States and California Constitutions; attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act; violations of the Communications Act, unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200; unfair practices under California Business and Professions Code; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; defamation and libel, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff then proceed to file an amended complaint asserting s...
Several Zappos customers individually filed suit against Zappos appealing that their model of business haven’t safeguard the valuable info of their customers. Appellants recorded 12 causes of action for the suit blaming Zappos of not taking sufficient actions to protect customers' personally detectable info. In June 2012, there were 9 law...
Kay’s argument talks about the rideshare service “Uber” and how they are taking over the taxi industry. Weaknesses found in Kay’s article is when he makes Uber look bad when talking about their flashy and innovative app, which seems like he is promoting it and with a little more research, Kay can find other apps that are similar to Uber. He sounds tongue-in-cheek when writing it. Secondly, Kay is lacking evidence to support what he is trying to say in his article because his points are too weak and basic. Finally, this article left the reader wondering what is he really trying to prove in his argument about Uber since he seems to be all over the place with his arguments. Overall, this article was very weak and not
Advertisement agencies use behavioral advertisement, or third party cookies, to track customers on and off their client’s website. This allows them to create specific banner ads that display content viewed and not purchased, in hopes of getting a larger customer return and purchase rate. This practice is increasing among e-commerce and is raising concerns with ethical and privacy advocators.
In August 2006, the Recording Industry Association of America filed suit against Lime Wire for copyright infringement. Lime Wire is a very popular software service that allows people to share and exchange files on the internet. It has reportedly been downloaded 200 million times, and used by 58% of people who download and share music from a peer to peer networks. Therefore, Lime Wire has used artists copyrighted material for personal gains which is most certainly a copyright infringement.
I am glad that you are keeping me updated with the status of the case. I have read Provision Optical's response to the complaint and I feel that it is necessary to provide the inquiry committee with additional info to better the investigation. The reason that I am bringing this issue to the attention of COBC is because I believe that this business transaction does not only involve consumer fraud but also violates ethical opticianry services. It is my hope that the success of this case can help prevent other future victims from suffering fraud and unethical services from Provision Optical.
In February of 1978, Ford Motor Company was sued for $128 million, which amounted to more than three times the amount that had been previous...
Scrolling through my Facebook feed on my iPhone, casually looking at my friend’s pictures statuses and updates, I came across a video with an amusing title. I tapped the play button expecting the video to load. Instead, I was redirected to an app asking permission to access my “public information, pictures and more.” I then realized; what I considered to be “private information” was not private anymore. Privacy is becoming slowly nonexistent, due to the invasion of advertising companies and the information we publicly post in the online world. In the essay “The Piracy of Privacy: Why Marketers Must Bare Our Souls” by Allen D. Kanner remarks, how major companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft get billions of transmissions each year on
Uber needs to focus its entry into densely populated areas of Canada lacking a well developed public transit system. These opportunities can easily be taken advantage of if Uber was to further develop its existing strengths.
- Receive a fair settlement of just claims including compensation for misrepresentation, shoddy goods or unsatisfactory services