Uber 1099 Legal Team
Uber 1099 Class Action
Learn more about the class action lawsuit against Uber
for filing 1099s for individuals who did not drive for Uber.
The Legal Team
Damian | Valori | Culmo is a Miami-based law firm focused on complex business litigation, receiverships, fraud matters, and high-stakes disputes. Our attorneys represent individuals and businesses nationwide and bring decades of experience to every case. We take the time to understand each client’s situation and develop strategic, results-driven solutions while delivering exceptional service and cost-effective representation.
The Uber1099 case is led by Partner Kenneth Dante Murena, an attorney with more than 28 years of experience handling nationwide receiverships and litigation based on fraud and other wrongdoing in federal and state courts. Mr. Murena brings extensive legal experience and strategic insight to the case on behalf of individuals affected by the alleged misconduct. Mr. Murena is assisted by Adriana Pavon, an attorney who works on complex litigation matters, including receiverships and fraud-related cases in federal and state courts.
Kenneth Dante Murena
Kenneth Dante Murena
Kenneth Dante Murena
Partner, Damian | Valori | Culmo
Adriana Pavon
Kenneth Dante Murena
Kenneth Dante Murena
Attorney, Damian | Valori | Culmo
Mr. Murena and Ms. Pavon are joined by co-counsel Ryan Watstein and Alexander Terepka of Watstein Terepka LLP, a nationwide litigation boutique focused on complex disputes, including consumer class actions, privacy litigation, and commercial litigation. The firm’s attorneys have extensive experience handling high-stakes matters across the country and have litigated hundreds of class actions in courts nationwide.
Ryan Watstein
Alexander Terepka
Alexander Terepka
Partner, Watstein Terepka LLP
Alexander Terepka
Alexander Terepka
Alexander Terepka
Partner, Watstein Terepka LLP
Summary of Class Action
Uber 1099 Class Action Lawsuit
Plaintiff, Damian R. Josefsberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, recently commenced a class action against Uber Technologies (“UBER”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division), alleging that he and all similarly situated individuals are victims of UBER’s widespread tax fraud and corresponding violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434. In particular, as alleged in the Class Action Complaint, UBER willfully made a false and fraudulent statement to the IRS when it filed an Information Return (1099-NEC) in 2021 with the IRS reporting that it paid nonemployee compensation to Plaintiff. That was false. Plaintiff has never driven for UBER and UBER has never paid him anything.
As a direct result of UBER’s actions, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated suffered damages and are at risk of suffering further damages. As such, Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals the greater of the damages suffered or $5,000.00 in statutory damages provided for in Section 7434, and seeks the imposition of injunctive relief against UBER to prevent further damages and protect all victims from similar future harms, under applicable law and equitable principles.
A complete copy of the Class Action Complaint that Plaintiff filed can be downloaded by clicking here.
Plaintiff’s Class Action Complaint includes the following allegations:
UBER’s fraudulent tax filing is the product of its corporate policy of knowingly and willfully accepting driver-applicants using the PII (including SSNs) of other people to pass UBER’s driver screening to become an UBER driver (“Unscreened UBER Driver”). UBER knowingly and willfully accepts these applications to fulfill its never-ending need for more and more drivers to fuel its growth and increase its revenue. UBER knows it receives the same income from trips by Unscreened UBER Drivers as it does from trips by screened UBER drivers.
UBER, since its inception in 2009, has consistently placed its quest for growth over compliance with the law and its own self-imposed rules to the detriment of the public with whom it interacts. This credo is woven into UBER’s corporate fabric, guides its internal decision-making, and leads to unwritten internal policies that frequently conflict with the public-facing image it seeks to portray.
One of the primary keys to UBER’s growth, and thus increased revenue, is its ability to deliver more and more passenger trips, which requires enlisting more and more drivers to its platform to perform those passenger trips. The easier it is for prospective drivers to sign up to UBER’s platform, the more drivers will, in fact, sign up. Screening barriers such as “clean” background checks, issue-free driving records, or the ability to work legally in the United States impede UBER’s abilities to rapidly increase its driver pool and thus its trip deliveries.
The need for UBER to rapidly enlist more and more drivers to compete in the marketplace and increase its revenue has led UBER to willfully and knowingly permit its driver-applicants to use the “clean” PII of others to pass UBER’s driver screening, register for UBER’s platform, and drive for UBER. UBER permits this even though UBER has no idea who the Unscreened UBER driver actually is, whether that driver is permitted to legally work in the United States, and whether that driver truly has a “clean” background check or driving record—a scary thought. Plaintiff refers to UBER’s corporate policy and practice of permitting driver-applicants to use the PII of others to pass UBER’s driver screening and qualify to drive for UBER as UBER’s “Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme.” That Scheme directly shows the willfulness of UBER’s actions for purposes of the Section 7434 claim at issue in this putative class action. UBER’s Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme is deeply rooted in UBER’s internal corporate policies, and its existence is well documented in the public domain.
UBER’s acceptance of Unscreened UBER Drivers using other individuals’ PII in the driver screening process has effectively eliminated all barriers to becoming an UBER driver. An individual with a criminal record, an unsafe driving record, and/or no authorization to work in the United States can simply use someone else’s “clean” and “authorized” PII to receive access to the privileges and the status of an UBER driver, drive UBER’s passengers, and receive income from UBER for those passenger trips, without UBER actually knowing anything about that driver. Again, this makes no difference to UBER because it receives the same money from a screened UBER driver’s trip as it does from an Unscreened UBER driver’s trip.
UBER either actively created or knowingly adopted the Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme because UBER needs its driver-applicants to provide SSNs as part of the screening process. That includes, without limitation, to conduct background checks, to confirm authorization of the ability to legally work in the United States, and to report the income UBER pays to its drivers to the IRS through Information Returns (defined below) pursuant to the Federal Income Reporting Laws (also defined below).
To maintain public trust and ensure the public their ride is “safe,” UBER also needs to claim it screens its drivers. The Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme allows UBER to tell the public that it screens its drivers, because it does actually screen someone, like Plaintiff, just not the actual Unscreened UBER Driver driving the passenger. UBER, through use of the Barrier-Free Drive Screening Scheme, has effectively found a loophole to placate the public while at the same time effectively removing all driver-screening barriers permitting virtually anyone to become an UBER driver.
The reality of UBER’s Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme has come to light. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Code’s, 26 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. (“IRC”) requires that UBER file information returns (“Information Returns,” such as an IRS Form 1099 (“1099”)), with the IRS reporting compensation paid to contractors, here UBER’s drivers. As a result of UBER’s scheme, however, thousands of non-driver taxpayers have received notices that UBER has willfully and fraudulently filed Information Returns with the IRS falsely reporting to the IRS that UBER paid compensation to these taxpayers.
The non-driver taxpayer’s receipt of an Information Return from UBER or notice from the IRS that UBER has filed an Information Return under his or her SSN is confirmation that UBER: (i) permitted an Unscreened UBER driver to use his or her SSN to enroll as an Unscreened UBER Driver; (ii) paid that Unscreened UBER Driver compensation without even knowing his or her true identity, whether he or she had a criminal record, an unsafe driving record, or was authorized to legally work in the United States; and (iii) willfully made a fraudulent and false statement to the IRS about the amount of payments it made to a non-driver taxpayer who received no such payments from UBER.
The non-driver taxpayer is not without recourse against UBER for falsely reporting to the IRS they received income or compensation from UBER. Congress, in Section 7434, created a private right of action for tax fraud under which individuals who were victimized by the willful filing of false Information Returns could sue the perpetrator for the greater of $5,000 or the actual damages incurred because of the fraudulent filing, along with the potential right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. See 26 U.S.C. § 7434.
Plaintiff, himself a victim of UBER’s tax fraud and the Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme, brings this Class Action Complaint pursuant to Rule 23 and Local Rule 23.1 on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons. These persons are victims of UBER’s violations of Section 7434 for willful filing of fraudulent Information Returns falsely reporting to the IRS that UBER paid compensation to Plaintiff and others who received no such payments.
UBER violates Section 7434 by violating the IRC requirements to accurately keep records concerning payments made to employees and contractors and truthfully report payments made to those employees and contractors to the IRS because UBER’s Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme is more important to UBER’s business model and bottom line.
Further, UBER violates Section 7434 by violating its own self-imposed Driver Screening Policy (defined below) it claims it conducts on drivers to assure the public its services are safe. UBER, under this self-created and imposed safety policy, is supposed to know the identity and background of its drivers. It is clear, however, that UBER did not know the true identity of the drivers that used Plaintiff’s and the other Nationwide Class Members’ identities when driving for UBER because unknown Unscreened UBER Drivers were really the ones driving UBER’s passengers.
Plaintiff and the other Nationwide Class Members meet the injury-in-fact standing requirements of Article III. They have suffered concrete injuries in the form of (i) tax liability for driver income they never received from UBER (because they never served as UBER drivers), or (ii) payments made to professionals (such as to attorneys, accountants, and/or tax preparers) required to address and correct the issues caused by UBER’s filing of false Information Returns reporting phantom income to the IRS, lost income from missing work and other business endeavors, and suffered other inconveniences that monetarily impacted them. These injuries are actual and not speculative, are concrete, and were in fact suffered.
Plaintiff, for example, has suffered concrete and particularized injury-in-fact by paying thousands of dollars to attorneys to address the issues caused by UBER’s willfully filing of a 1099-NEC that falsely reported UBER paid compensation to Plaintiff in the calendar year 2021 (“Plaintiff 1099-NEC”). Plaintiff’s injury described in the Complaint is directly traceable to UBER’s issuance of the Plaintiff 1099-NEC to the IRS falsely reporting it paid compensation to Plaintiff in 2021, thereby violating Section 7434. This resulted directly from UBER’s Barrier-Free Driver Screening Scheme pursuant to which UBER willfully and knowingly permitted an Unscreened UBER Driver to use Plaintiff’s PII, including his SSN, to create an UBER account in his name, drive UBER’s passengers, and receive compensation from UBER, which UBER passed off to Plaintiff in the Plaintiff 1099-NEC. UBER, itself, committed all of these acts—there is no break in this causation chain. Plaintiff’s injury is directly traceable to UBER’s actions or inactions.
Section 7434 redresses Plaintiff’s and the other Nationwide Class Members’ injuries because it provides for the greater of $5,000.00 or actual damages. Injunctive relief against UBER, enjoining them from issuing 1099-NEC forms to, and filing information returns with the IRS for, any person who did not actually serve as an UBER driver, will also prevent UBER from causing further harm to Plaintiff and the other Nationwide Class Members and causing similar harm to other individuals throughout the country.
Download The Class Action Complaint Against Uber
If You Have Any Questions
1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020, Miami, FL, USA
(786)706-9916 uber1099@dvcattorneys.com www.dvcattorneys.com
Frequently Asked Questions
Please reach us at uber1099@dvcattorneys.com if you cannot find an answer to your question.
Uber filed a 1099-NEC information return with the IRS, reporting that our client, Damian Josefsberg, received income from Uber for serving as an Uber driver, but Mr. Josefsberg never drove for or received income from Uber. As a result, Mr. Josefsberg incurred costs in attempting to cancel the Uber driver account under his name and social security number and have the 1099-NEC corrected with the IRS, and was at risk of suffering further damages if these actions were not taken. Our investigation revealed that this happened to hundreds if not thousands of other individuals. So, we filed this class action to recover damages to compensate Mr. Josefsberg and other similarly situated individuals for the harm this caused to them.
We asserted one claim for Uber’s alleged violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434, based on Uber’s alleged willful filing of false or fraudulent 1099-NEC information returns with the IRS for individuals, such as Mr. Josefsberg, who did not drive for or receive income from Uber and, as a result of such filing with the IRS, suffered damages.
We filed the Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Miami, Florida.
If the Court certifies a class of individuals similarly situated to Mr. Josefsberg with respect to the facts alleged in the Class Action Complaint, you may qualify as a class member. If we prevail on the claim alleged in the Class Action Complaint, or a settlement is reached providing for the payment of damages to the certified class, and we receive a recovery from Uber, you may be eligible to receive a payment from that recovery.
On behalf of Mr. Josefsberg and all similarly situated individuals, we are seeking to recover the greater of the actual damages suffered by each class member as a result of Uber’s alleged violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434, or $5,000.00 provided for under that statute. We are also seeking the imposition of injunctive relief against Uber to prevent further damages to the class members and to protect all victims from similar future harms.
Uber 1099 Class Action
For more information: uber1099@dvcattorneys.com
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.