Uber Sued by San Francisco, L.A. Over Business Practices While Lyft Settles

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

County district attorneys in Los Angeles and San Francisco sued Uber, the ridesharing company, and announced a settlement with the company’s competitor, Lyft, on Tuesday.

In this photo illustration, a woman uses the Uber app on a Samsung smartphone on Sept. 2, 2014 in Berlin, Germany. Uber, an app that allows passengers to buy rides from drivers who do not have taxi permits, had its UberPop freelance driver service banned in Germany after a complaint from a trade association of taxi drivers in the country. The company, which operates in dozens of countries, planned to appeal the court decision. (Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images)

In this photo illustration, a woman uses the Uber app on a Samsung smartphone on Sept. 2, 2014 in Berlin, Germany. Uber, an app that allows passengers to buy rides from drivers who do not have taxi permits, had its UberPop freelance driver service banned in Germany after a complaint from a trade association of taxi drivers in the country. The company, which operates in dozens of countries, planned to appeal the court decision. (Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images)

In a civil lawsuit announced by L.A. District Attorney Jackie Lacey and San Francisco DA George Gascon, Uber Technologies, Inc., was accused of making false and misleading statements to customers about its driver background checks.

The company uses “industry-leading” background checks that are made “completely worthless” by the failure to fingerprint its drivers, Gascon said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Uber allegedly violated state business law by making untrue statements about the checks and by “unlawfully having its drivers work at airports across the state without obtaining authorization from airport officials,” according to a news release from Lacey’s office.

Uber also allegedly fraudulently charged a $4 "airport fee toll" to San Francisco customers going to and from the city’s airport, which was not getting receiving any fees from the company.

"Unfortunately, Uber, unlike Lyft, has refused to comply with reasonable regulations as required by California law," Lacey said in the news release. "As a result, Uber continues to put consumers at risk by misleading the public about the background checks of its drivers and its unwillingness to ensure that correct fares are charged."

Lyft, Inc., settled a civil consumer protection action brought against it over its own statements about its driver background checks.

It agreed to stop making misleading statements and to submit its mobile app for monitoring by the state agency that seeks to ensure accuracy in commercial measurements.

Lyft, which must pay penalties of $500,000, must also get authorization from California airports to operate on their premises.