
It’s called vomit fraud. And it could make your Uber trip really expensive - minimaxir
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article215299675.html
======
drglitch
Somewhat related: landlords in NYC have been pulling similar stuff on renters
for years when they move out, often forcing people to leave thousands of
dollars behind in forfeited security deposits due to "damages", because most
people never put up a fight.

Two anecdotes from personal experience, both in rental buildings ran by large
RE holdings mind you:

\- a building claimed a scratched sink and subtracted $600 for replacement.
After multiple discussions and a firm stance that I will pay it only if they
provided me with physical scratched sink they've swapped out, the charge
magically dropped to $70, as they "were able to polish out the scratches
instead and there was a miscommunication with maintenance staff".

\- another building claimed a vanity was destroyed by water and had to be
replaced at a cost of a bit over $2,000. After multiple emails and threats to
go to court, I've won. The key was showing them that EXIF data on photo
"evidence" they sent me showed it was taken 3 months BEFORE i moved into the
apt in question and also that the marble pattern on photos did not match
several photos i've had of the bathroom of the apartment.

Similar stories happened with rental cars a few times.

Sadly, it's a lesson i've learned for life - whether its a rental car,
apartment, or anything of value really, taking video evidence is almost
necessary nowadays.

~~~
jmspring
Rental cars is an interesting one. The Munich airport rental car companies
contract with a third party in returns. Myself and a friend were both told by
the rental companies that the third party is incentivized to come up with BA
scratches, etc.

Being diligent is important. Pictures, notes, properly filled out forms.

~~~
pasbesoin
I take pictures, insist on a walk-around, and insist the employee on the walk-
around with me notes all observed defects.

Sometimes, they'll say "don't worry about it". I politely, hopefully somewhat
adroitly and politically, insist.

In many situations, e.g. storm damage, I've taken to taking a bunch of
pictures -- maybe also a video, in which all the observations "hang together"
and have contemporary commentary.

I may never need to use this, but digital memory's cheap, these days, and it
also saves me from worry about trying to recall details at a later date.

Just yesterday, I was looking in on an older artist friend who has a
combination of care-givers and an handyman through the house on a daily basis.
Part of one of her heavier, wall-mounted ceramics had crashed to the floor,
with the top end leaning against the dining room table.

What happened? I'm not sure (the friend is confused, at times). But I grabbed
my phone and took some pictures. The handyman probably has it cleaned up by
now. But if something needs to be done -- even just an insurance claim,
depending on the details of their insurance that I don't currently know -- I
can supply the pictures.

On the other hand, I feel a bit at times like I'm expressing/demonstrating
paranoia. And the whole "surveillance society" thing. I try to limit this to
immediately relevant subjects/events, in my own life. Not "watching the
neighbors".

------
ben_jones
This happened to me exactly one week ago. Three days after a very ordinary
Sunday afternoon ride I got a ~$80 fee. I contested through the app and got a
message containing two close-up pictures of a stained back seat. There was no
background of the car, just a close-up of a seat cushion. The ticket was
closed immediately after I received the picture. I was able to re-open it by
replying to the email of the ticket I received, where I asked for proof of the
time it occurred, or proof of anything really. I received a message
acknowledging that I wanted proof, and then a generic summary of Uber's policy
- once again the ticket was closed.

I am now adamantly not using Uber. Keep your $80 you lost a frequent customer.

Edit: FWIW this was for a ride from SF to RWC. Not in Miami.

~~~
andrei_says_
I’m not using Uber because of their uber-sexist working environment, their
uber-exploiting their drivers and complete lack of morals.

Their platform becoming a breeding ground for scams is a function of the
company’s nature.

~~~
insickness
How is uber sexist?

~~~
nostalgeek
One of the most comment article on HN in recent history

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682022)

------
filmgirlcw
This is terrible. Obviously, when people puke in cars, they should be charged
accordingly, but these types of scams are awful.

The easiest solution seems to be that the driver should initiate the “charge”
while the passenger is still in the car/on the ride. Then a notification can
come up in the app and tell the passenger they are being charged for
cleanliness/whatever.

That’s how regulars cabs work (at least in NYC). You puke in the cab, you get
$75 added to your fair (been there, done that. Not proud.).

It’s possible some scammers might try to do that with people in the car, but
at that point, the passenger can gather their own evidencs and contact the
company immedietly.

~~~
giancarlostoro
The cleaning supplies cannot even go above $20, like you have got to be
kidding me. Uber has the same issue all online retail has, when complaints
come in, who can you believe and how do you evaluate? My thing is, if a driver
keeps reporting these events and multiple drivers keep disputing it, maybe
that driver has a pattern of screwing with your customers... The first time it
happens to a driver it should be that Uber out of their own pocket pays for
'supplies' and still only charge like $20 or whatever is 'reasonable' I
suppose.

Although my next question is: how much of that vomit fee goes only to Uber?
They sure as hell aint cleaning nobodys car...

~~~
ericabiz
The cleaning supplies aren’t the only issue. From a driver’s standpoint, if
they’re in their first hour of a long shift and get a puker, they have
significant lost income for the rest of the night. That’s what this is to
reimburse for. And I also think it’s high so people will think twice about
doing it!

This sort of fraud is unacceptable, though. Uber’s going to have to come up
with some sort of photo recognition that time and date stamps every photo
submitted, and doesn’t allow same or similar photos. This is pushing the edge
of what ML/AI can do currently.

~~~
giancarlostoro
I see, hadn't considered it from that perspective, I've never driven Uber or
Lyft, only have family that have. I've heard only of one instance where
somebody spilled juice in my relatives car and they put a negative review
against the rider.

------
mnm1
Chargeback. Chargeback. Chargeback. That's unfortunately the new strategy that
I've been using more and more these last couple of years to deal with crooked
companies like Uber, Amazon, as well as local businesses like car repair and
ticket vending. It's just unbelievable how little protection consumers have.
And of course, even chargebacks don't always work. Then it's over to small
claims court. This has also been increasing because we simply don't have
proper consumer protection laws and have no other alternatives to companies
literally stealing our money. It's just a fact of life in America that you
will be fucked over and over by companies stealing money with little recourse.
This isn't even uber's only scam. Drivers often don't even try to come and
when you cancel the ride, they charge you for the driver's incompetence.
Chargeback again and again and again then small claims. If only we could have
proper laws regulating such fraud...

~~~
jancsika
I don't see why that's unfortunate. It was the route taken here, too:

> Despite several email exchanges, Uber never agreed to reimburse her the
> extra money. But she disputed the charge with her credit card company and
> got back her $98. Uber then canceled her account.

Problem solved.

> If neither Uber nor the credit card issuers agree to reimburse the victims
> of fraud in Miami, it’s not clear if the dispute becomes an issue for the
> county or the state.

But I didn't read any evidence that a credit card issuer has denied the
customer's dispute. In fact every (reasonable) case I've ever heard of the
card issuer sides with the cardholder and not the merchant.

~~~
mnm1
When you issue a chargeback, the credit card company asks the merchant to
return the money. They have no power to enforce this even if they side with
the issuer. If they cannot get the money after six months or so, you're on
your own with small claims. I'm there right now even though the merchant
promised in writing they would refund me. I've been screwed before also with
five star Marriott hotel rooms that had no air conditioning in summer in
Cancun. The belief that the credit card company eats the loss if the merchant
refuses to refund is a myth, albeit one even I believed till recently. Don't
ever rely on that. Not from any credit card, not even Amex. This is how things
really work and most people don't find out till they get fucked over.

------
deckar01
> Miami police say this type of fraud “is difficult to consider as a crime”

They must not understand how fraud is defined in their jurisdiction.

> Under Florida law, an individual commits fraud when they conceal information
> that should not have been concealed, when they purposefully lie, or when
> they undertake any sort of dishonest act for the purpose of benefiting
> themselves and duping another. A person found guilty of fraud in Florida
> faces anything from restitution to extensive jail time.

[https://www.baezlawfirm.com/what-constitutes-as-fraud-
under-...](https://www.baezlawfirm.com/what-constitutes-as-fraud-under-
florida-law/)

This is no different than a server overcharging you at a restaurant. Contact
your credit card company, then file a police report. One of the police force's
primary objectives is to enforce laws by pursuing criminal charges on behalf
of citizens in its jurisdiction. If your report is mishandled, file a
complaint against the officer assigned to the case.

~~~
otterley
I think what they meant was "we don't have the resources to prosecute this
sort of crime in light of all the more serious crime we have to deal with in
Miami."

~~~
dsfyu404ed
More like "we have enough crime that we can pick and choose what we want to
solve and we'd rather kick down doors and arrest minor drug dealers than track
down petty fraud". If solving petty fraud gave the swat team an excuse to kick
down doors they'd probably solve more petty fraud. It's no different than a
dev choosing to write more spaghetti than fix their old spaghetti. Nobody
wants to do boring stuff regardless of your line of work.

------
DenisM
How about this for a fix?

1\. The driver must file a complain with video evidence within 5 minutes of
the ride ending. The video evidence should be recorded via Uber app, hence we
can mostly trust the timestamp.

2\. The passenger entering a vehicle will look around for dirt. If they find
it, they make a recording (using Uber app), within first 5 minutes of the
ride. Or just refuse the ride.

Thus the driver cannot pin dirt created after the ride on the earlier
passenger (5 minute limit), and they cannot pin earlier dirt on the passenger
(passenger will have reported it). Technically the driver could still smear
the car in the space of those 5 minutes after the ride, but that still narrows
the window dramatically. And no extra overhead for the mainstream use case (no
dirt).

As an extra, if the passenger is worried, they can snap a picture/video while
exiting the car, as the ride ends (also using the app). Presumably the user is
no longer in the vehicle, as evident in the video, and any accusations of them
having vomited in the car would not be credible.

Did I miss anything?

Dunno, or maybe just require dashcam evidence...

------
lurker456
"The Miami-Dade Office of Consumer Protection said that as of July 1, 2017 it
no longer “regulates complaints against transportation services such as Uber
or Lyft,” and that any complaints should be addressed to the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The state consumer affairs department said it was not aware of the change and
declined an interview request."

------
orf
Ensure the photo of the damage is taken through the app and is taken live, not
uploaded. Then watermark it with a timestamp.

Problem solved for the common case? Photos of photos on screens aside, it
would raise the barrier for the fraudster.

------
ojosilva
Uber should be transparent and add 2 fields to a drivers profile: "# of issues
reported", "# of issues accepted". Every time a driver reports an issue, or a
passenger complaint against such issue goes through, the corresponding counter
goes up.

A driver with ie a 7-7 record would be a potential fraudster. Yet a 7-0 record
could just mean the driver had a lot of bad luck picking up passengers.

It may be too idealistic from my part, but at least that way a user could
check the probability of a driver being a crook. Adding a prerequisite for
supporting evidence would be nice too, such as requiring a timestamped picture
of the passenger next to the damage for a claim to be successfull.

------
yosito
On the other hand, when I was driving for Lyft someone vomited and bled on my
back seat. I'm glad Lyft covered the damage and cleanup.

------
true_tuna
Won’t the time stamps on the image metadata differ from the trip? Uber could
automatically review every cleaning fee. Drivers caught scamming could be
terminated. Ten lines of code could eliminate the problem instantly.

~~~
otterley
Only if the photo was taken before the trip commenced. A photo taken after the
trip ended would be less contestable on the basis of time.

Also, fake vomit is trivially easy to find: [https://www.amazon.com/s/field-
keywords=fake+vomit](https://www.amazon.com/s/field-keywords=fake+vomit)

------
asadlionpk
This exact incident has happened to me in Bay Area. That too in the new
'express pool' ride (there were other passengers in the ride)

I had to send a few emails back and forth before the issue was quietly
resolved in my favor.

------
minimaxir
So how will the inevitable self-driving Ubers handle vomit?

~~~
ericabiz
Car2go handles it like this: When you get in the car, you rate its
cleanliness.

If it’s not drivable (flat tire, puke, etc.), they have a team of people on-
call to fix them.

If it’s just not clean but still drivable, it alerts them and at some point
the on-call folks will come out and clean it.

They also have the ability to charge the previous driver a cleaning fee.

------
gaius
Waiting for someone to propose a blockchain to fix this

~~~
qrbLPHiKpiux
Lol my LIT out my nose!

~~~
gaius
Seriously tho’, blockchain fans think “unregulated” is a huge plus... this is
what unregulated looks like

~~~
rebuilder
Presumably, escrow would be the blockhainy solution to this. 2-of-3 key
signatures required to release payment, so at the end of a ride, both parties
need to agree all was in order, or file a dispute with the escrow provider.

Blockhain shenanigans aside, it seems to me Uber could provide escrow here. It
would at least remove this problem of after-the-fact surprise charges.

~~~
gaius
You don’t need blockchain to do escrow - people have been doing it for
hundreds of years already without...

~~~
rebuilder
What I meant was more that you need escrow to use blockchains for trade, not
the other way around.

------
fit2rule
So Uber updates the app, requires the user to take a photo of their seat in
the car when they exit the vehicle, gets the driver to acknowledge the picture
in order to close out the transaction.

Dunno whats so hard about this?

~~~
wellpast
How often does this happen? How about Uber eat the cost if driver and rider
don’t agree on the facts. If a driver reports statistically more denied vomit,
cut zhim off from any benefits. Isn’t this how, eg, other types of fraud
prevention work?

~~~
dmurray
I expect they already do this, and also have a system for cutting off
suspected fraudulent passengers. And it probably works pretty well (they have
some smart statisticians there, and the right incentives), but it's
statistically based and every so often they have a false positive and cut off
an honest customer or an honest driver. It would be unacceptable for a
government body, or a utility with a government-granted monopoly, to do this
without an appeals process, but it doesn't sound so bad for a private company
that has competition.

~~~
thebluehawk
The problem is that Uber doesn't care. I've had a driver say they picked me
up, and I can see them driving away on the app while I'm standing on the
sidewalk. I cancelled the trip and Uber still charged me for a partial trip
even though my phone was reporting I wasn't in the car.

