Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies Purchase Commitments The Company has commitments for network and cloud services, background checks, and other items in the ordinary course of business with varying expiration terms through 2034. These amounts are determined based on the non-cancelable quantities or termination amounts to which the Company is contractually obligated. As of March 31, 2020, there were no material changes to the Company’s purchase commitments disclosed in the financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. Contingencies From time to time, the Company may be a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020, the Company had recorded aggregate liabilities of $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of its legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. The Company has existing litigation, including class actions, PAGA lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. In connection with the enactment of California State Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), the Company has received and expects to continue to receive - in California and in other jurisdictions - an increased number of misclassification claims. With respect to the Company’s outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against the Company for amounts in excess of management's expectations, the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected. AB5 In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity. The Company has received lawsuits and governmental inquiries relating to AB5, in California and in other jurisdictions, and anticipates future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging the Company’s classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. The Company believes that its current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. The Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss at this time. State Unemployment Taxes In December 2016, following an audit opened in 2014 investigating whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees, the Company received a Notification of Assessment from the Employment Development Department, State of California, for payroll tax liabilities. The notice retroactively imposed various payroll tax liabilities on the Company, including unemployment insurance, employment training tax, state disability insurance, and personal income tax. The Company has filed a petition with an administrative law judge of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board appealing the assessment. This matter remains pending. In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against both Rasier and Uber. Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The Company is engaged in ongoing discussions with the NJDOL about the assessments, though the NJDOL has noticed Uber for a hearing on the merits. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Google v. Levandowski & Ron; Google v. Levandowski On October 28, 2016, Google filed arbitration demands against each of Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron, former employees of Google, alleging breach of their respective employment agreements with Google, fraud and other state law violations (due to soliciting Google employees and starting a new venture to compete with Google’s business in contravention of their respective employment agreements). Google sought damages, injunctive relief, and restitution. On March 26, 2019, following a hearing, the arbitration panel issued an interim award, finding against each of Google’s former employees and awarding $127 million against Anthony Levandowski and $1 million for which both Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron are jointly and severally liable. In July 2019, Google submitted its request for interest, attorneys fees, and costs related to these claims. The Panel’s Final Award was issued on December 6, 2019. On February 7, 2020, Ron and Google entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release to satisfy the corrected final award in the amount of approximately $10 million. Uber paid Google on behalf of Ron pursuant to an indemnification obligation. A dispute continues to exist with regard to Uber’s alleged indemnification obligation to Levandowski. Whether Uber is ultimately responsible for indemnification of Levandowski depends on the exceptions and conditions set forth in the indemnification agreement. In March 2020, Levandowski pleaded guilty to criminal trade secret charges and filed for bankruptcy. Levandowski has since moved to compel arbitration of his indemnification claim against Uber, and Uber has agreed to arbitration of the dispute. The ultimate resolution of the matter could result in a possible loss of up to $60 million or more (depending on interest incurred) in excess of the amount accrued. Taiwan Regulatory Fines Prior to the Company adjusting and re-launching its operating model in April 2017 to a model where government-approved rental companies provide transport services to Riders, Drivers in Taiwan and the local Uber entity have been fined by Taiwan’s Ministry of Transportation and Communications in significant numbers across Taiwan. On January 6, 2017, a new Highways Act came into effect in Taiwan which increased maximum fines from New Taiwan Dollar (“NTD”) 150,000 to NTD 25 million per offense. The Company suspended its service in Taiwan from February 10, 2017 to April 12, 2017, but a number of these fines were issued to the local Uber entity in connection with rides that took place in January and February 2017 prior to the suspension. These fines have remained outstanding while Uber appeals the tickets through the courts. Beginning in July 2018, the Taiwan Supreme Court issued a number of positive rulings in which it rejected the government’s approach of issuing one ticket per ride. The Taiwan government has appealed these rulings to the Supreme Court, which escalated the matter to its nine-justice “Grand Chamber.” A hearing is expected in May 2020, with a decision likely to follow a few months later. Swiss Social Security Reclassification Several Swiss government bodies currently classify Drivers as employees of Uber Switzerland, Rasier Operations B.V. or of Uber B.V. for social security or regulatory purposes. A number of such decisions have been made by these governmental bodies. The Company is challenging each of them. The Cantonal Court of Zurich issued a ruling with regard to certain test cases on July 20, 2018. The court canceled the decisions on the grounds that certain decisions were made against the Company’s Swiss local entity without proof that there is a contractual relationship between the Company’s Swiss local entity and the Drivers (who actually contract with Uber B.V.). This ruling was not appealed and the Swiss governmental bodies continue to investigate the identity of the employer. On July 5, 2019, the Swiss governmental bodies issued four decisions by which they reclassified four drivers as Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. employees and consider that Uber Switzerland should pay social security contributions. The Company has appealed those decisions. On August 19, 2019, Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. were notified of SVA Zurich’s decision to reclassify Drivers in 2014 as employees of these entities. The authorities rejected the Company’s internal appeal, so the Company plans to appeal before the Social Security Tribunal. Further, another Swiss governmental body ruled on October 30, 2019 that Uber B.V. should be qualified as a transportation company based on the view that Uber B.V. is the employer of Drivers. The Company appealed this decision. In April 2020, a ruling was made on a separate matter in Switzerland which reclassified a Driver as an employee. The Company plans to appeal this decision. The ultimate resolution of the social security matters could result in a loss of up to $125 million. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are uncertain. Aslam, Farrar, Hoy and Mithu v. Uber B.V., Uber Britannia Ltd. and Uber London Ltd. On October 28, 2015, a claim by 25 Drivers, including Mr. Y. Aslam and Mr. J. Farrar, was brought in the UK Employment Tribunal against the Company asserting that they should be classified as “workers” (a separate category between independent contractors and employees) in the UK rather than independent contractors. The tribunal ruled on October 28, 2016 that Drivers are workers whenever the Company’s app is switched on and they are ready and able to take trips. The Court of Appeal rejected the Company’s appeal in a majority decision on December 19, 2018. The Company has been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place in July 2020 with a decision in the fall of 2020. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claim and if they are successful in establishing “worker” status, any damages will be considered at a future hearing. The amount of compensation sought by the plaintiffs in the case is not currently known. If Drivers are determined to be workers, they may be entitled to additional benefits and payments, and the Company may be subject to penalties, back taxes, and fines. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated. Non-Income Tax Matters The Company recorded an estimated liability for contingencies related to non-income tax matters and is under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regard to such matters. The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arises from the Company’s transactions with its Drivers, as well as the tax treatment of certain employee benefits and related employment taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions with Drivers, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales, value added and similar taxes) to services provided, as well as the applicability of withholding tax on payments made to such Drivers. For example, the Company is involved in a proceeding in the UK involving HMRC, the tax regulator in the UK, which is seeking to classify the Company as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively. Further, if Drivers are determined to be workers, they may be entitled to additional benefits and payments, and the Company may be subject to penalties, back taxes, and fines. The Company believes that the position of HMRC and the regulators in similar disputes and audits is without merit and is defending itself vigorously. During the first quarter of 2020, the Company favorably resolved a state non-income tax exposure in the U.S. resulting in a $138 million reduction of U.S. non-income tax reserves. The Company’s estimated liability is inherently subjective due to the complexity and uncertainty of these matters and the judicial processes in certain jurisdictions, therefore, the final outcome could be different from the estimated liability recorded. Other Legal and Regulatory Matters The Company has been subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of the Company’s business practices, compliance with antitrust and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, the adequacy of disclosures to investors and other shareholders, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. The Company has investigated many of these matters and is implementing a number of recommendations to its managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as seeking to strengthen its overall governance structure. In many cases, the Company is unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on the Company’s business which could be time consuming, costly to investigate and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact the Company’s business, reputation, financial condition and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures. Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company often includes standard indemnification provisions in its arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, the Company may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with its activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by the Company. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and its certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.

The Company has commitments for network and cloud services, background checks, and other items in the ordinary course of business with varying expiration terms through 2034. These amounts are determined based on the non-cancelable quantities or termination amounts to which the Company is contractually obligated. As of March 31, 2020, there were no material changes to the Company’s purchase commitments disclosed in the financial statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

From time to time, the Company may be a party to various claims, non-income tax audits and litigation in the normal course of business. As of December 31, 2019 and March 31, 2020, the Company had recorded aggregate liabilities of $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, respectively, in accrued and other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for all of its legal, regulatory and non-income tax matters that were probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company is currently party to various legal and regulatory matters that have arisen in the normal course of business and include, among others, alleged independent contractor misclassification claims, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims, background check violations, pricing and advertising claims, unfair competition claims, intellectual property claims, employment discrimination and other employment-related claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claims, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims, data and privacy claims, securities claims, antitrust claims, challenges to regulations, and other matters. The Company has existing litigation, including class actions, PAGA lawsuits, arbitration claims, and governmental administrative and audit proceedings, asserting claims by or on behalf of Drivers that Drivers are misclassified as independent contractors. In connection with the enactment of California State Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), the Company has received and expects to continue to receive - in California and in other jurisdictions - an increased number of misclassification claims. With respect to the Company’s outstanding legal and regulatory matters, based on its current knowledge, the Company believes that the ultimate amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The outcome of such legal matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties. If one or more of these matters were resolved against the Company for amounts in excess of management's expectations, the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

In January 2020, AB5 went into effect. AB5 codifies a test to determine whether a worker is an employee under California law. The test is referred to as the “ABC” test, and was originally handed down by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court in 2018. Under the ABC test, workers performing services for a hiring entity are considered employees unless the hiring entity can demonstrate three things: the worker (A) is free from the hiring entity’s control, (B) performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) customarily engages in the independent trade, work or type of business performed for the hiring entity.

The Company has received lawsuits and governmental inquiries relating to AB5, in California and in other jurisdictions, and anticipates future claims, lawsuits, arbitration proceedings, administrative actions, and government investigations and audits challenging the Company’s classification of Drivers as independent contractors and not employees. The Company believes that its current and historical approach to classification is supported by the law and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. However, the results of litigation and arbitration are inherently unpredictable and legal proceedings related to these claims, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Regardless of the outcome, litigation and arbitration of these matters can have an adverse impact on the Company because of defense and settlement costs individually and in the aggregate, diversion of management resources and other factors. The Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss at this time.

In December 2016, following an audit opened in 2014 investigating whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees, the Company received a Notification of Assessment from the Employment Development Department, State of California, for payroll tax liabilities. The notice retroactively imposed various payroll tax liabilities on the Company, including unemployment insurance, employment training tax, state disability insurance, and personal income tax. The Company has filed a petition with an administrative law judge of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board appealing the assessment. This matter remains pending.

In 2018, the New Jersey Department of Labor (“NJDOL”) opened an audit reviewing whether Drivers were independent contractors or employees for purposes of determining whether unemployment insurance regulations apply from 2014 through 2018. The NJDOL made an assessment on November 12, 2019, against both Rasier and Uber. Both assessments were calculated through November 15, 2019, but only calculated the alleged contributions, penalties, and interests owed from 2014 through 2018. The Company is engaged in ongoing discussions with the NJDOL about the assessments, though the NJDOL has noticed Uber for a hearing on the merits. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated.

On October 28, 2016, Google filed arbitration demands against each of Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron, former employees of Google, alleging breach of their respective employment agreements with Google, fraud and other state law violations (due to soliciting Google employees and starting a new venture to compete with Google’s business in contravention of their respective employment agreements). Google sought damages, injunctive relief, and restitution. On March 26, 2019, following a hearing, the arbitration panel issued an interim award, finding against each of Google’s former employees and awarding $127 million against Anthony Levandowski and $1 million for which both Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron are jointly and severally liable. In July 2019, Google submitted its request for interest, attorneys fees, and costs related to these claims. The Panel’s Final Award was issued on December 6, 2019. On February 7, 2020, Ron and Google entered into a settlement agreement and mutual release to satisfy the corrected final award in the amount of approximately $10 million. Uber paid Google on behalf of Ron pursuant to an indemnification obligation. A dispute continues to exist with regard to Uber’s alleged indemnification obligation to Levandowski. Whether Uber is ultimately responsible for indemnification of Levandowski depends on the exceptions and conditions set forth in the indemnification

agreement. In March 2020, Levandowski pleaded guilty to criminal trade secret charges and filed for bankruptcy. Levandowski has since moved to compel arbitration of his indemnification claim against Uber, and Uber has agreed to arbitration of the dispute. The ultimate resolution of the matter could result in a possible loss of up to $60 million or more (depending on interest incurred) in excess of the amount accrued.

Prior to the Company adjusting and re-launching its operating model in April 2017 to a model where government-approved rental companies provide transport services to Riders, Drivers in Taiwan and the local Uber entity have been fined by Taiwan’s Ministry of Transportation and Communications in significant numbers across Taiwan. On January 6, 2017, a new Highways Act came into effect in Taiwan which increased maximum fines from New Taiwan Dollar (“NTD”) 150,000 to NTD 25 million per offense. The Company suspended its service in Taiwan from February 10, 2017 to April 12, 2017, but a number of these fines were issued to the local Uber entity in connection with rides that took place in January and February 2017 prior to the suspension. These fines have remained outstanding while Uber appeals the tickets through the courts. Beginning in July 2018, the Taiwan Supreme Court issued a number of positive rulings in which it rejected the government’s approach of issuing one ticket per ride. The Taiwan government has appealed these rulings to the Supreme Court, which escalated the matter to its nine-justice “Grand Chamber.” A hearing is expected in May 2020, with a decision likely to follow a few months later.

Several Swiss government bodies currently classify Drivers as employees of Uber Switzerland, Rasier Operations B.V. or of Uber B.V. for social security or regulatory purposes. A number of such decisions have been made by these governmental bodies. The Company is challenging each of them. The Cantonal Court of Zurich issued a ruling with regard to certain test cases on July 20, 2018. The court canceled the decisions on the grounds that certain decisions were made against the Company’s Swiss local entity without proof that there is a contractual relationship between the Company’s Swiss local entity and the Drivers (who actually contract with Uber B.V.). This ruling was not appealed and the Swiss governmental bodies continue to investigate the identity of the employer. On July 5, 2019, the Swiss governmental bodies issued four decisions by which they reclassified four drivers as Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. employees and consider that Uber Switzerland should pay social security contributions. The Company has appealed those decisions. On August 19, 2019, Uber B.V. and Rasier Operations B.V. were notified of SVA Zurich’s decision to reclassify Drivers in 2014 as employees of these entities. The authorities rejected the Company’s internal appeal, so the Company plans to appeal before the Social Security Tribunal. Further, another Swiss governmental body ruled on October 30, 2019 that Uber B.V. should be qualified as a transportation company based on the view that Uber B.V. is the employer of Drivers. The Company appealed this decision. In April 2020, a ruling was made on a separate matter in Switzerland which reclassified a Driver as an employee. The Company plans to appeal this decision. The ultimate resolution of the social security matters could result in a loss of up to $125 million. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are uncertain.

On October 28, 2015, a claim by 25 Drivers, including Mr. Y. Aslam and Mr. J. Farrar, was brought in the UK Employment Tribunal against the Company asserting that they should be classified as “workers” (a separate category between independent contractors and employees) in the UK rather than independent contractors. The tribunal ruled on October 28, 2016 that Drivers are workers whenever the Company’s app is switched on and they are ready and able to take trips.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Company’s appeal in a majority decision on December 19, 2018. The Company has been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. A hearing at the Supreme Court is expected to take place in July 2020 with a decision in the fall of 2020. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claim and if they are successful in establishing “worker” status, any damages will be considered at a future hearing. The amount of compensation sought by the plaintiffs in the case is not currently known. If Drivers are determined to be workers, they may be entitled to additional benefits and payments, and the Company may be subject to penalties, back taxes, and fines. The Company’s chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any possible loss or range of loss cannot be estimated.

The Company recorded an estimated liability for contingencies related to non-income tax matters and is under audit by various domestic and foreign tax authorities with regard to such matters. The subject matter of these contingent liabilities and non-income tax audits primarily arises from the Company’s transactions with its Drivers, as well as the tax treatment of certain employee benefits and related employment taxes. In jurisdictions with disputes connected to transactions with Drivers, disputes involve the applicability of transactional taxes (such as sales, value added and similar taxes) to services provided, as well as the applicability of withholding tax on payments made to such Drivers. For example, the Company is involved in a proceeding in the UK involving HMRC, the tax regulator in the UK, which is seeking to classify the Company as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively. Further, if Drivers are determined to be workers, they may be entitled to additional benefits and payments, and the Company may be subject to penalties, back taxes, and fines. The Company believes that the position of HMRC and the regulators in

similar disputes and audits is without merit and is defending itself vigorously. During the first quarter of 2020, the Company favorably resolved a state non-income tax exposure in the U.S. resulting in a $138 million reduction of U.S. non-income tax reserves. The Company’s estimated liability is inherently subjective due to the complexity and uncertainty of these matters and the judicial processes in certain jurisdictions, therefore, the final outcome could be different from the estimated liability recorded.

The Company has been subject to various government inquiries and investigations surrounding the legality of certain of the Company’s business practices, compliance with antitrust and other global regulatory requirements, labor laws, securities laws, data protection and privacy laws, the adequacy of disclosures to investors and other shareholders, and the infringement of certain intellectual property rights. The Company has investigated many of these matters and is implementing a number of recommendations to its managerial, operational and compliance practices, as well as seeking to strengthen its overall governance structure. In many cases, the Company is unable to predict the outcomes and implications of these inquiries and investigations on the Company’s business which could be time consuming, costly to investigate and require significant management attention. Furthermore, the outcome of these inquiries and investigations could negatively impact the Company’s business, reputation, financial condition and operating results, including possible fines and penalties and requiring changes to operational activities and procedures.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company often includes standard indemnification provisions in its arrangements with third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, the Company may be obligated to indemnify such parties for losses or claims suffered or incurred in connection with its activities or non-compliance with certain representations and warranties made by the Company. In addition, the Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its officers, directors, and certain current and former employees, and its certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain certain indemnification obligations. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential loss under these indemnification provisions / obligations because of the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.