1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No.:

 

DAMIAN R. JOSEFSBERG, individually Class Representation

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND

 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

and CHECKR, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/ 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, files 

this Class Action Complaint against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Checkr, 

Inc. (“Checkr”), and based upon personal knowledge of facts pertaining to himself and, upon 

information and belief, based on the investigation of counsel as to all other matters, alleges the 

following: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This Class Action Complaint is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure by and on behalf of all persons who are or have been a victim of identity theft by 

an employee and/or contractor driving for Uber during the applicable limitations period.

2. With this action, Damian R. Josefsberg seeks to hold Uber and Checkr (collectively 

the “Defendants”) responsible for the harms caused by Defendants’ negligent, unfair, 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 30
2

unconscionable, and deceptive practices with regard to their background checks and identity 

verifications of Uber drivers.

3. Uber maintains a ride-sharing platform, similar to a taxi service, that allows users 

to download its mobile application to request rides from drivers in the area. 

4. Uber drivers are employees and/or contractors of Uber who, according to Uber, are 

required to undergo initial and routine follow-up background checks and identity verifications for 

the safety of its customers. Uber drivers are not required to maintain any specialized licensure 

other than a common driver’s license.

5. Uber, however, does not conduct the aforementioned background checks or identity 

verifications in-house; instead, Uber outsources the background checks and identity verifications 

to Checkr, a technology company that specializes in such services.

6. Despite its claims that every driver must pass the background check and identity 

verification before being permitted to drive for Uber, many drivers use false information and stolen 

identities and become Uber drivers.

7. Checkr, which is contracted by Uber to conduct the background checks and identity 

verifications, consistently fails to properly screen the drivers or detect their use of stolen identities 

and then reports that drivers using stolen identities have cleared the background checks and 

identity verifications.

8. Instead of verifying that each driver has cleared its background check and identity 

verification policies, Uber has confirmed that it does not maintain or receive the results of said 

background checks and identity verifications by Checkr or any other service provider.

9. Moreover, Uber and Checkr both failed to notify Plaintiff that they were obtaining 

a background report on the Plaintiff as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 30
3 

10. As a result, innocent people such as Mr. Josefsberg become victims of Defendants 

Uber and Checkr and are left with no choice but to deal with the consequences, which include 

without limitation the hiring and paying professionals to rectify their tax filings, credit reports, and 

other financial documents. 

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff, Damian R. Josefsberg, is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

12. Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., is a California corporation which maintains a 

registered agent in Florida and conducts substantial business activities on a regular and continuous 

basis nationwide and in Florida. 

13. Uber committed the torts subject of this Complaint in Florida by negligently 

allowing a driver to use Plaintiff’s stolen identity in Florida. And, Uber committed an intentional 

tort against Plaintiff causing injury in Florida, by employing the fraudulent business practice of 

claiming to background check drivers but not actually doing so such that an Uber driver was 

driving for Uber using Plaintiff’s stolen identity in Florida.

14. Defendant, Checkr, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that conducts substantial 

business activities on a regular and continuous basis nationwide and in Florida. 

15. Checkr committed the torts subject of this Complaint in Florida by negligently 

failing to perform a background check on an Uber driver and therefore facilitating that driver’s use 

of Plaintiff’s stolen identity in Florida. And, Checkr committed an intentional tort against Plaintiff 

causing injury in Florida, by employing the fraudulent business practice of claiming to background 

check Uber drivers but not actually performing those checks such that a driver was driving for 

Uber using Plaintiff’s a stolen identity in Florida.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 30
4 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This is a consumer class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

1681, et seq. (“FCRA”), brought on behalf of Plaintiff and those similarly situated. This Court has 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

17. This Court has original diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (“CAFA”) because Plaintiff and many members of the Class (as 

defined below) are citizens of states different from Defendants’ home states and the aggregate 

amount in controversy in this action exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and there 

are more than 1,000 members in the proposed Class. 

18. Jurisdiction is also proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681p, because Plaintiff’s FCRA claims arise under federal law. This Court also has 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, pursuant to Florida Statutes 

§§ 48.193(1)(a)(1), (2), and (6), because they conduct substantial business in this District; some 

of the actions giving rise to the Complaint took place in this District; and some of Plaintiff’s claims 

arise out of Defendants’ operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business 

venture, or having an office or agency, in the State of Florida, committing a tortious act in this 

state, and causing injury to Plaintiff in this state arising out of Defendants’ acts and omissions 

outside this state; and at or about the time of such injuries, Defendants were engaged in solicitation 

or service activities within this state. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants 

because they consented to jurisdiction by registering to do business in Florida. This Court has 

pendant or supplemental personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-Florida Class members. 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 30
5 

20. Furthermore, Uber has marketed, advertised, sold, and performed its services

within this District, and Checkr knowingly performs its services for residents of this District. 

Indeed, Checkr performs the background checks for Uber for drivers residing in and applying to 

drive in Florida. Checkr’s misconduct with respect to those background checks is the subject of 

this lawsuit. Accordingly, Defendants have sufficient contacts with this District to subject 

Defendants to personal jurisdiction. 

21. Venue is proper in this District, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District, Defendants 

have caused harm to Class members residing in this District, and Defendants regularly conduct 

business in this District. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

22. Uber is a technology company that, among other things, develops, markets, and 

operates a mobile-app-based ride sharing transportation network (the “Uber App”). 

23. Similar to a taxi service, the Uber App allows users to submit a trip request on their 

smartphone, which is transmitted to nearby Uber drivers for acceptance and completion. 

24. Uber’s business model depends on drivers, who are required to provide their

personal identification information and undergo a background screening process before they can 

begin driving for Uber. 

25. Uber’s website contains an extensive page dedicated to “Driver Screening.” See

https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/safety/driver-screening/. Among the policies provided on the

Driver Screening webpage, Uber warrants1 the following: 

1 The Driver Screening page states that the information contained therein applies all to 

drivers using Uber in the 50 U.S. states and Washington, DC. 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 30
6

a. Driver screening. Everyone who drives with Uber is screened before 

their first trip. In addition, Uber reruns these driver screenings[] every 

year and uses technology to look for issues in between. It’s part of our 

commitment to help keep you safe when you request a ride with Uber.

b. Drivers are background checked before their first trip. Prospective 

drivers must undergo a multi-step safety screen that checks for issues 

including, but not limited to, driving violations, impaired driving, and 

violent crime.

c. Drivers must pass an annual check to continue accessing the app. 

Uber proactively reruns driving[] and criminal history checks every year 

to ensure that drivers continue to meet our standards.

d. Assuming someone else’s identity is prohibited. Drivers are 

periodically asked to take a photograph of themselves, which we match 

against their on-file identification to help make sure the right driver is 

behind the wheel.

26. To conduct the background screenings and identity verifications for its drivers, 

Uber contracts with Checkr to perform those services for Uber.

27. Checkr is a technology company that offers background checks and identity 

verification services through its software-based platform to employers across the United States.

28. Among its advertised services, Checkr’s product mix includes criminal background 

checks, employment verifications, driving record checks, drug and health screenings, education 

verifications, and international background checks.

29. On or about June 19, 2022, Mr. Josefsberg learned that Uber filed a 1099-NEC in 

his name. 

30. Mr. Josefsberg did not receive the 1099-NEC from Uber. Rather, Mr. Josefsberg 

learned of the 1099-NEC form through an IRS transcript reflecting that Uber had issued the 1099 

under Mr. Josefsberg’s social security number for compensation in the amount of $1,236.00. 

31. The 1099-NEC does not list Mr. Josefsberg’s street address. Instead, the 1099-

NEC states “UNKNOWN” as the street address, and only includes “Weston, FL 33327” as the 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 30
7

city, state, and zip code for Mr. Josefsberg. It is unclear whether this refers to Mr. Josefsberg’s 

former Weston address.

32. Mr. Josefsberg has never been a driver for Uber, nor has he ever been an employee 

or independent contractor for Uber.

33. Suspecting that an Uber driver had permitted a driver to use his identity, Mr. 

Josefsberg, through the undersigned counsel, sent a letter to Uber on August 15, 2022, demanding 

that it cease all Uber driver accounts using Mr. Josefsberg’s name, social security number, or other 

personal identification information.

34. In the same correspondence, Mr. Josefsberg requested that Uber provide all

documents related to any background checks and identification verification in connection with any 

Uber driver accounts using Mr. Josefsberg’s name, social security number, or other personal 

identification information. Mr. Josefsberg also requested that Uber provide all IRS 1099 forms or 

W-9 forms, issued in Mr. Josefsberg’s name, along with any supporting documents thereto. See 

id. 

35. On September 8, 2022, Uber responded to Mr. Josefsberg’s August 15 

correspondence, stating that it identified an account using Mr. Josefsberg’s personal identification 

information. However, to proceed with removing Mr. Josefsberg’s personal identification 

information from the fraudulent account, Uber required Mr. Josefsberg to send various personal, 

sensitive documents to Uber, including a photograph of the 1099 form he received, a copy of his 

photograph ID, a photograph of himself holding the photograph ID, and a Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”) Identity Theft Report.

36. In the September 8, 2022 correspondence, Uber also represented to Mr. Josefsberg 

that “[b]ackground checks are performed by Checkr, Inc., a third-party background check 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 30
8

provider. Obtaining any documents related to background checks will need to be done through 

Checkr.” Id.

37. Mr. Josefsberg’s attorneys responded to Uber’s correspondence on September 12, 

2022, complying with Uber’s request for documents and further renewed Mr. Josefsberg’s request 

for documents pertaining to the fraudulent account and any IRS forms and supporting documents 

issued in his name. 

38. Specifically, Mr. Josefsberg requested any documents and correspondence between 

Uber and Checkr related to any “background check or identity verification that Checkr, Inc.

performed for and provided to Uber associated with any individual using Mr. Josefsberg’s name, 

social security number, or other personal identifiable information.”

39. Mr. Josefsberg also requested that Uber confirm whether it possesses such 

documents, and “how Uber would confirm a contractor’s background and/or identify prior to the 

contractor’s performing services for which Uber would provide compensation, if not through 

documents or correspondence from Checkr.” Id.

40. On or about September 13, 2022, Mr. Josefsberg submitted a request to Checkr for 

all documents relating to the background check or identity verification performed on the fraudulent 

account. 

41. On September 15, 2022, Mr. Josefsberg again requested confirmation that Uber 

removed his personal identification information from the fraudulent account. Mr. Josefsberg again

renewed his prior requests for documents related to the fraudulent account and all documents and 

correspondence pertaining to the background check and identity verification for the account. 

42. On September 20, 2022, Uber admitted to Mr. Josefsberg that it does not possess 

any of the requested documents related to the background check or identity verification in 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 30
9 

connection with the fraudulent account, and that Mr. Josefsberg needs to contact Checkr to retrieve

said documents. 

43. Both Uber and Checkr have failed to provide Mr. Josefsberg with the background 

report that they ordered and prepared using his name and social security number despite Plaintiff’s 

written request served on each Defendant. 

44. Finally, on September 26, 2022, Uber confirmed that it deactivated the fraudulent 

account in Mr. Josefsberg’s name to prevent any further trips from being completed. 

45. Despite having sufficient proof that it filed an improper 1099-NEC in Mr. 

Josefsberg’s name, Uber has not corrected its filing to date, nor has Uber complied with Mr. 

Josefsberg’s request for documents and correspondence related to any background check or 

identity verification for the fraudulent account.

46. Further, Uber materially misrepresents and has failed to comply with the 

background check and identity verification procedures and policies listed on its Driver Screening

webpage, as it claims to not have any documents or correspondence related to any background 

check or identity verification for the fraudulent account. 

47. At all relevant times, Uber knew, or reasonably should have known, of the 

importance of properly screening its drivers and abiding by its background check and identification 

verification policies and procedures. 

48. Likewise, Uber knew, or reasonably should have known, of the foreseeable 

consequences of its failure to properly screen its drivers, as many instances of substantially similar 

conduct has been reported in the past.

2

 Reports of drivers using false identities to obtain 

2 Lukas I. Alpert, Nationwide rideshare and delivery scam put thousands of unqualified Uber and 

Lyft drivers onto the road with stolen identities, Market Watch, Dec. 27, 2021, available at: 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-nationwide-rideshare-and-delivery-scam-put-thousandsCase 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 9 of 30
10 

employment with Uber has become commonplace, as many of these drivers would be unable to 

become drivers due to their prior criminal history, unsatisfactory driving record, immigration 

status, or lack of credit worthiness, among other things. 

49. Checkr, while performing its background checks and identity verification services

for Uber, similarly failed to discover that the identity thief was not Mr. Josefsberg. 

50. Checkr did not provide any report to Uber regarding the individual for whom it was 

engaged to perform the background check, as evidenced by its failure to distribute the underlying 

documentation to Uber, and the incorrect and missing information on the 1099-NEC issued in Mr. 

Josefsberg’s name.

51. The Defendants systematically violate section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by 

ordering and/or preparing consumer reports without, beforehand, providing the person who is the 

subject of the report sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the report and a summary of 

rights under the FCRA, effectively leaving the person who is the subject of the report without any 

opportunity to prevent the preparation of the report, to stop any identity theft occurring with the 

unauthorized use of his or her personal information, or to even know who prepared the background 

report about him or her.

52. The FCRA regulates “consumer reports” for employment purposes, commonly 

called “background reports.” Congress included in the FCRA a series of due-process-like 

of-unqualified-drivers-onto-the-road-with-stolen-identities-11640209474 (last accessed Oct. 27, 

2022); Dara Kerr, Some Uber drivers use bogus identities and shared accounts, CNET, Nov. 26, 

2019, available at: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/uber-drivers-using-fake-identities-isnt-justa-london-problem/ (last accessed Oct. 17, 2022); Associated Press, 2 Plead Guilty in Ride-Hailing 

Fake Driver Account Scheme, U.S. News, Mar. 24, 2022, available at: 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/massachusetts/articles/2022-03-24/2-plead-guilty-inride-hailing-fake-driver-account-scheme (last accessed Oct. 17, 2022). 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 10 of 30
11 

protections that impose strict procedural rules on “users of consumer reports,” such as Uber and 

Checkr. This action involves Defendants’ systematic violations of those important rules.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

53. Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg brings this Class Action against Uber and Checkr, 

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3), on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated as members of the following class (the “Class”): 

For the maximum time period allowable by law (the “Class 

Period”), any person or any person’s legal representative who, in 

violation of Federal law or Florida law, is or has been a victim of 

identity theft by an employee and/or contractor driving for Uber

resulting in the use of that person’s identity to work for Uber. 

54. Plaintiff is willing and prepared to serve the Class in a representative capacity with 

all the obligations and material duties necessary. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Class and have no interests adverse to or in conflict with the interests 

of any of the other members of the Class.

55. Plaintiff’s interests are co-extensive with and not antagonistic to those of absent 

members within the Class. Plaintiff will undertake to represent and protect the interests of absent 

members within the Class and will vigorously prosecute this action.

56. Plaintiff has engaged the services of the undersigned counsel. Counsel is 

experienced in complex litigation, will adequately prosecute this action, and will assert and protect 

the rights of, and otherwise represent, Plaintiff and absent members of the Class.

57. Class action status is warranted under Rule 23(b)(3) because questions of law or 

fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 11 of 30
12

58. The Class may also be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted 

on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making it appropriate to award final 

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Class.

59. The Class may also be certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (B) because the 

prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class, which would 

establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants, would be dispositive of interests of 

nonparties to the individual adjudications, and would substantially impair the ability of such 

nonparties to protect their interests.

60. The interest of members within the Class in individually controlling the prosecution 

of separate actions is theoretical and not practical. The Class has a high degree of similarity and 

is cohesive, and Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this matter as a class action.

61. The nature of notice to the proposed Class is contemplated to be by direct mail upon 

certification of the Class, or, if such notice is not practicable, by the best notice practicable under 

the circumstances including, among other things, email, publication in major newspapers, and the

internet. 

62. The persons comprising the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, 

Plaintiff believes in good faith that the Class includes thousands of persons, of which will be 

identifiable from records maintained by Defendants. Plaintiff has been able to deduce that the 

Class contains at least 1,000 members from the number of online complaints concerning the 

identity theft alleged herein and Uber’s website dedicated to collecting complaints concerning this 

same form of identity theft.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 12 of 30
13

63. Indeed, Uber’s and Checkr’s negligence and failure to comply with FCRA results 

in the identity theft alleged in this Complaint so frequently that Uber has a “help” website3

dedicated to collecting complaints by victims of such identity theft. Indeed, the existence of the 

Uber website for victims that received a 1099 form even though they never drove for Uber 

establishes that many potential Class members must have suffered the same form of harm

facilitated by Uber and Checkr, as described herein. 

64. The questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class 

predominate over any questions of law and fact affecting only individual Class members.

65. Defendants have acted with respect to Plaintiff and all Class members in a manner 

generally applicable to each of them. There is well-defined community of interest in the questions 

of law and fact affecting the Class which satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.

66. Questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff and Class include, but are not 

necessarily limited to, the following:

a. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class were victims of identity 

theft and were otherwise harmed at the hands of an employee/contractor 

driving for Uber.

b. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class were victims of identity 

theft and were otherwise harmed due to Uber’s and Checkr’s violations 

of the FCRA in their failure to disclose to Plaintiff and Class members 

that background reports were being prepared on them, failure to obtain 

their consent to prepare a background report on them, and failure to give

them the opportunity to prevent the preparation of those background 

reports and/or to request a copy of the resulting reports.

c. Whether Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in 

violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

(“FDUTPA”) or similar statutes in other states that allowed identity 

theft and other harms caused to be committed as to Plaintiff and Class

members.

3 https://help.uber.com/driving-and-delivering/article/i-do-not-drive-with-uber-but-ireceived-a-1099-tax-document-from-uber?nodeId=edd5d179-cbd5-49b7-ae55-19d865cd9efa

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 13 of 30
14

d. Whether Defendants had a duty to properly conduct background checks 

and identity verifications of the forementioned drivers and/or take 

appropriate actions to protect the public from misrepresentations of 

prospective or existing Uber drivers that reasonably could have been 

discovered by a proper background check and identity verification.

e. Whether Defendants failed to properly conduct background checks and 

identification verifications of the forementioned drivers and/or take 

appropriate actions to protect the public from misrepresentations of 

prospective or existing Uber drivers that reasonably could have been 

discovered by a proper background check and identity verification.

f. Whether Defendant Uber has caused harm by issuing incorrect 1099 

forms in the name of the Plaintiff and the Class members

67. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the Class in that each member of the Class was 

a victim of identity theft at the hands of an employee and/or contractor driving for Uber, facilitated 

by Defendants’ failure to properly conduct background checks and identity verification on said 

drivers and/or take appropriate actions to protect the public from misrepresentations of prospective 

or existing Uber drivers that reasonably could have been discovered by a proper background check 

and identity verification and/or by making disclosures and obtaining consent required under the 

FCRA. Proof of a common or single set of facts will establish the right of each Class member to 

recover. 

68. Plaintiff is cognizant of, and determined to faithfully discharge, his duties to the 

absent Class members and Class representatives.

69. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests if the entire 

Class because Plaintiff has suffered a similar loss as that of the Class members. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is directly interested in the prosecution and outcome of this Action.

70. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel has substantial experience in the fields of complex civil 

litigation and class action litigation.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 14 of 30
15

71. The prosecution of separate claims by individual Class members would create a 

risk of adjudication concerning individual claims that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive 

of the interests of other Class members who are not parties to the adjudications or substantially 

impair or impede the ability of such other Class members to protect their interests.

72. There are no unusual difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of this 

action as a class suit that could not be managed by the Court. The advantages of maintaining this 

action as a class suit far outweigh the expense and waste of judicial resources that would result 

from hundreds, if not thousands, of separate adjudications of these issues for each of the Class 

members.

73. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all 

Class members, thereby making declaratory relief requested below appropriate.

74. A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the 

controversy. The interest of the Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of 

separate claims against Defendants is slight because the cost of litigation compared to the possible 

outcome is negligible. Management of the Class claims is likely to present significantly fewer 

difficulties than those presented in many individual claims. There is no plain, speedy, or adequate 

remedy other than by maintenance of this Class Action, nor is it economically feasible to pursue 

remedies other than through a class action. Consequently, there would be a failure of justice but 

for the maintenance of the present Class Action.

75. Indeed, it would be nearly impossible for all members of the Class to individually 

seek redress for the wrongs at issue in this action. Even if the Class members could afford the 

financial strain of individually prosecuting their clams, the judicial system could not. Paired with 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 15 of 30
16 

the threat of inconsistent or contradictory judgments and the waste of judicial resources, it is clear 

that class action treatment is appropriate when weighed against the alternative. 

76. In sum, class action treatment is proper because it will result in substantial benefits 

to the litigants, courts, and public by permitting the Court to address and resolve Plaintiff’s and 

the Class’s claims in a single forum based upon a single presentation of proof. 

77. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter an order certifying that this action 

shall be maintained as a class action.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE

(Against Uber) 

78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-77 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

79. This is an action by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class members, against 

Uber for damages stemming from its negligent processing of background checks and identity 

verification services for its drivers and its issuance of incorrect 1099 forms. 

80. Uber had a duty to exercise reasonable care in fully performing and complying with 

the background check and identity verification policies and procedures warrantied on its Driver 

Screening webpage and issuing accurate and complete 1099s forms for its drivers 

81. Among its duties, Uber was required to perform a background check and identity 

screening on the identity thief who used Plaintiff’s name and other personal identification 

information, and other Uber drivers who used such information of Class members, and issue

accurate and complete 1099 forms for its drivers. 

82. Uber was subject to an independent duty, untethered to any contract between 

Plaintiff and Uber.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 16 of 30
17

83. Uber has full knowledge of the importance of properly performing background 

checks and identity verifications of its drivers, and its failure to properly perform the 

forementioned background checks and identity verifications for its drivers presents an 

unreasonable risk of harm to others, such as Plaintiff, Class members, and Uber’s customers, even 

if the harm occurs through the criminal acts of a third-party.

84. Uber knew or reasonably should have known that its failure to comply with its own 

background check and identity verification policies and procedures would likely result in harm to 

others, including Plaintiff, Class members, and Uber’s customers.

85. Uber breached its duty by failing to comply with the policies and procedures listed 

on its Driver Screening webpage, not completing a proper background check and identity 

verification on the individual who stole Mr. Josefsberg’s identity and failing to ascertain the 

identity of the driver who stole Mr. Josefsberg’s identity.

86. As a direct and proximate result of Uber’s breach, Plaintiff has and will continue to

suffer damages, including but not limited to incurring costs associated with (i) hiring and paying 

professionals to rectify the incorrect tax filings, (ii) adverse effects on his tax filing status, (iii) 

filing and pursuing a complaint for identity theft with the FTC, and (iv) other adverse effects of 

identity theft.

87. Due to the damages caused by Uber’s breach, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned 

attorneys and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for their services.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and the Class 

members, demands judgment against Defendant Uber for damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees 

based on the creation of a common fund recovery, and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 17 of 30
18 

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE

(Against Checkr)

88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-77 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

89. This is an action by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class members, against 

Checkr for damages stemming from its negligent processing of background checks and identity 

verification services for its drivers and/or failure to provide the results of such services to Uber. 

90. Checkr had a duty to exercise reasonable care in fully performing its background 

checks and identity verifications in connection with screening Uber drivers. 

91. Among its duties, Checkr was required to perform a background check and identity 

screening on the identity thief using Plaintiff’s name and other personal identification information. 

92. Checkr was subject to an independent duty, untethered to any contract between 

Plaintiff and Checkr. 

93. Checkr has full knowledge of the importance of properly performing background 

checks and identity verifications of Uber drivers, and its failure to properly perform the 

forementioned background checks and identity verifications for Uber drivers, and/or failure to 

provide the results of such services to Uber, presents an unreasonable risk of harm to others, such 

as Plaintiff, Class members, and Uber’s customers, even if the harm occurs through the criminal 

acts of a third-party. 

94. Checkr knew or reasonably should have known that its failure to properly perform 

background checks and identity verifications of Uber drivers, and/or its failure to provide the 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 18 of 30
19 

results of such services to Uber, would likely result in harm to others, including Plaintiff, Class 

members, and Uber’s customers.

95. Checkr breached its duty by failing to properly perform a background check and 

identity verification on the individual who stole Mr. Josefsberg’s identity and failing to ascertain 

the true identity of the driver who stole Mr. Josefsberg’s identity and/or failing to provide the 

results of such services to Uber. 

96. As a direct and proximate result of Checkr’s breach, Plaintiff has and will continue 

to suffer damages, including but not limited to costs associated with (i) hiring and paying 

professionals to rectify the incorrect tax filings, (ii) adverse effects on his tax filing status, (iii) 

filing and pursuing a complaint for identity theft with the FTC, and (iv) other adverse effects of 

identity theft. 

97. Due to the damages caused by Checkr’s breach, Plaintiff has retained the 

undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay a reasonable fee for their services.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and the Class 

members, demands judgment against Defendant Checkr for damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ 

fees based on the creation of a common fund recovery, and any other relief the Court deems just 

and proper. 

COUNT III

FAILURE TO MAKE PROPER DISCLOSURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA

(15 U.S.C. §§ 168lb(b)(2)(A)) 

(Against all Defendants)

98. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-77 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein. Defendants are "persons" as defined by Section 1681a(b) of the FCRA.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 19 of 30
20

99. Plaintiff and Class members are "consumers" within the meaning Section 1681a(c) 

of the FCRA, because they are "individuals."

100. Section 1681a(d)(1)(B) of the FCRA defines "consumer report" as

any oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer 

reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit 

standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal 

characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be 

used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a 

factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility" for . . . 

employment purposes.

(B) employment purposes[.]

Thus, a credit and background report such as the report ordered by Uber and prepared by 

Checkr qualifies as a consumer report. 

101. Section 1681b(b) of the FCRA provides, in relevant part:

Conditions for furnishing and using consumer reports for employment 

purposes

(2) Disclosure to consumer 

(A) In general

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a 

consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for 

employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unlessi. a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in 

writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused 

to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a 

consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and 

ii. the consumer has authorized in writing (which 

authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the 

procurement of the report by that person.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 20 of 30
21

102. As described above, Plaintiff was informed by Uber, that in evaluating him and 

other Class members for employment, Uber procured and caused Checkr to prepare credit and 

background reports (i.e., a consumer report, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(l)(B)).

103. Defendants did not obtain Plaintiff or Class members’ consent prior to preparing 

such report because Defendants did not verify the identities of the job applicants on whom it was 

ordering or performing background reports.

104. For that same reason, Defendants did not provide Plaintiff or Class members with 

any disclosures, much less the clear disclosures required under the FCRA.

105. Under the FCRA, it is unlawful to procure or caused to be procured, a consumer 

report or investigative consumer report for employment purposes unless the disclosure is made in 

a document that consists solely of the disclosure and the consumer has authorized, in writing, the 

procurement of the report. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii).

106. Failure to provide any disclosure to Plaintiff and the Class members violates § 

168lb(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA.

107. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their obligations and the 

rights of consumers, including Plaintiff and class members. Defendants' willful conduct isreflected 

by, among other things, the following facts:

(a) Defendants are large corporations with access to legal advice;

(b) Defendants required a purported authorization to perform credit and 

background checks in the employment process which, although defective, 

evidences Defendants' awareness of and willful failure to follow the governing laws 

concerning such authorizations;

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 21 of 30
22

(c) despite knowledge of the consumer protections afforded to prevent 

unauthorized use of a consumer’s background report, Defendants did not contact 

Plaintiff or the Class members to verify their identities and/or to ensure that they 

were running background reports for the correct people, 

(d) Indeed, Defendants did not make any effort to confirm that they had

Plaintiff or Class members’ authorization to order or prepare the background 

reports and to prevent identity theft that occurred here; and

(e) The plain language of the statute unambiguously indicates that failure to 

obtain consent and provide notice to the actual consumer whose background report 

is being prepared violates the disclosure and authorization requirements of the 

FCRA.

108. Based upon the facts likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a policy 

and practice of procuring investigative consumer reports or causing investigative consumer reports 

to be procured for consumers, even those that never applied for a job with Uber, without informing 

such consumers of their right to request a summary of their rights under the FCRA at the same 

time as the disclosure or explaining that an investigative consumer report may be made. Pursuant 

to that policy and practice, Defendants procured investigative consumer reports or caused 

investigative consumer reports to be procured for Plaintiff and Class members, as described above, 

without informing class members of their rights under the FCRA.

109. Accordingly, Defendants willfully violated and continue to violate the FCRA 

including, but not limited to, §§ 168lb(b)(2)(A). Defendants' willful conduct is reflected by, 

among other things, the facts set forth above.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 22 of 30
23 

110. As a result of Defendants' illegal procurement of credit and background reports by 

way of their inadequate disclosures, as set forth above, Plaintiff and Class members have been 

injured including without limitation by having their identities stolen and having their privacy and 

statutory rights invaded in violation of the FCRA. 

111. Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all Class members seeks all available remedies 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, including statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, 

injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

112. In the alternative to Plaintiff’s allegations that these violations were willful, 

Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the appropriate remedy, if any, under 

15 U.S.C. § 1681o, including actual damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and the Class members,

requests that this Court enter a judgment against Defendants for statutory damages, compensatory 

damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs, and grant such other relief as this Court deems 

appropriate and just.

COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF FDUTPA AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE STATE 

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES STATUTES

(Against Uber) 

113. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-77 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

114. This is action by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, against Uber for 

damages, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs, pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 23 of 30
24

Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Florida Statutes §§ 501.201, et seq., and similar applicable statutes in 

in all other states. 4

115. Plaintiff meets the definition of a “person” as defined by FDUTPA and similar 

applicable statutes in states outside Florida.

116. Uber is engaged in “trade or commerce” in Florida as defined by FDUTPA and 

similar applicable statutes in states outside Florida.

117. In violation of FDUTPA and similar applicable statutes in states outside Florida, 

Uber engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts, practices, or methods of competition 

in the conduct of its trade or commerce by failing to properly conduct background checks and 

identity verifications of Uber drivers, and/or take appropriate actions to protect the public from 

misrepresentations of prospective or existing Uber drivers that reasonably could have been 

discovered by a proper background check and identity verification, and issuing complete and 

accurate 1099 forms, resulting in foreseeable harm to the public.

118. Uber failed to verify the true identity of the individual who represented to be 

Plaintiff in applying to become a driver for Uber, despite its false representations that it follows 

the background check and identity verification policies and procedures warrantied on its Driver 

Screening webpage, and failed to issue complete and accurate 1099 forms.

4 All 50 states have consumer protection laws that prevent unfair and deceptive trade 

practices and allow for recovery of actual damages, at a minimum. Many states’ consumer 

protection laws allow for recovery of damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Because Uber 

and Checkr conduct business in all 50 states and are carrying out these practices in every state in 

which they transact business, all Class Members will be able to recover under their state’s 

respective consumer protection statute. Accordingly, the allegations herein of Uber’s and 

Checkr’s unfair and deceptive trade practices will be applied to Class claims under all applicable 

state statutes prohibiting such practices.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 24 of 30
25

119. Due to Uber’s failure to abide by its own background check and identity verification 

policies and procedures and failure to issue complete and accurate 1099 forms, Uber allowed an 

individual to assume Plaintiff’s identity in driving for Uber.

120. The acts described herein are unlawful, in violation of public policy, immoral, 

unethical, oppressive, fraudulent, and/or unscrupulous, and thereby constitute unfair, unlawful, 

and/or deceptive business practices in violation of FDUTPA and similar applicable statutes in 

states outside Florida.

121. As a direct and proximate result of Uber’s unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive 

business practices described herein, Plaintiff has been aggrieved and suffered an injury in fact 

because Uber has obtained valuable property, money and/or services at the expense of Plaintiff,

including but not limited to incurring costs associated with (i) hiring and paying professionals to 

rectify the incorrect tax filings, (ii) adverse effects on his tax filing status, (iii) filing and pursuing 

a complaint for identity theft with the FTC, and (iv) other adverse effects of identity theft.

122. Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks such relief as may be necessary to restore to him 

the money and property which Uber has acquired, or of which Plaintiff has been deprived, by 

means of the above-described unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices.

123. Plaintiff is further entitled to and seeks a declaration that the above-described 

business practices are unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive, and injunctive relief preventing Uber 

from engaging in any of the above-described unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices 

in the future.

124. As a result of the unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices described 

herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless Uber is 

restrained from continuing to engage in said unfair, unlawful, and or deceptive business practices.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 25 of 30
26 

125. Due to the damages caused by Uber’s violation of FDUTPA and similar applicable 

statutes in states outside Florida, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and agreed to pay 

a reasonable fee for their services, for which Uber is liable pursuant to Florida Statutes § 501.2105

and similar applicable statutes in states outside Florida. 

126. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of 

this action are requested based upon the creation of a common fund recovery and based upon the 

foregoing statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and the Class, 

demands judgment against Defendant Uber for actual damages, interest, court costs, and attorneys’ 

fees pursuant to the creation of a common fund recovery, Florida Statutes § 501.2105, and similar 

applicable statutes in all other states, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT V – VIOLATION OF FDUTPA AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE STATE 

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES STATUTES

(Against Checkr)

127. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-77 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

128. This is action by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, against Checkr for 

damages, plus attorney’s fees and court costs, pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Florida Statutes §§ 501.201, et seq., and similar applicable statutes in 

in all other states.

129. Plaintiff meets the definition of a “person” as defined by FDUTPA and similar 

applicable statutes in states outside Florida. 

130. Checkr is engaged in “trade or commerce” in Florida as defined by FDUTPA and 

similar applicable statutes in all other states. 

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 26 of 30
27

131. In violation of FDUTPA and similar applicable statutes in states outside Florida, 

Checkr engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts, practices, or methods of 

competition in the conduct of its trade or commerce by failing to properly conduct background 

checks and identity verifications of Uber drivers, and/or failing to provide the results of such 

services to Uber, resulting in foreseeable harm to the public.

132. Specifically, Checkr failed to verify the true identity of the individual who 

represented to be Plaintiff in applying to become a driver for Uber.

133. Due to Checkr’s failure to ascertain the identity of the individual using Plaintiff’s 

personal identification information, Checkr allowed an individual to assume Plaintiff’s identity in 

driving for Uber.

134. The acts described herein are unlawful, in violation of public policy, immoral, 

unethical, oppressive, fraudulent, and/or unscrupulous, and thereby constitute unfair, unlawful, 

and/or deceptive business practices in violation of FDUTPA and similar applicable statutes in 

states outside Florida.

135. As a direct and proximate result of Checkr’s unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive 

business practices described herein, Plaintiff has been aggrieved and suffered an injury in fact

because Checkr has obtained valuable property, money and/or services at the expense of Plaintiff,

including but not limited to incurring costs associated with (i) hiring and paying professionals to 

rectify the incorrect tax filings, (ii) adverse effects on his tax filing status, (iii) filing and pursuing 

a complaint for identity theft with the FTC, and (iv) other adverse effects of identity theft.

136. Plaintiff is entitled to and seeks such relief as may be necessary to restore to him 

the money and property which Defendant has acquired, or of which Plaintiff has been deprived, 

by means of the above-described unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 27 of 30
28

137. Plaintiff is further entitled to and seeks a declaration that the above-described 

business practices are unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive, and injunctive relief preventing Checkr 

from engaging in any of the above-described unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices 

in the future.

138. As a result of the unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive business practices described 

herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless Checkr 

is restrained from continuing to engage in said unfair, unlawful, and or deceptive business 

practices.

139. Due to the damages caused by Checkr’s violation of FDUTPA and similar 

applicable statutes in states outside Florida, Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys and 

agreed to pay a reasonable fee for their services, for which Checkr is liable pursuant to Florida 

Statutes § 501.2105 and similar applicable statutes in all other states. 

140. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of 

this action are requested based upon the creation of a common fund recovery and based upon the 

foregoing statutes.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Damian R. Josefsberg, on behalf of himself and the Class, 

demands judgment against Defendant Checkr for actual damages, interest, court costs, and 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to the creation of a common fund recovery, Florida Statutes § 501.2105,

and similar applicable statutes in all other states, and any other relief the Court deems just and 

proper.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 28 of 30
29 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Damian R. Josefsberg, individually and on behalf of Class 

members proposed in this Complaint, respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his 

favor and against Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Checkr, Inc., as follows: 

A. For an Order certifying this action as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and the 

undersigned counsel to represent the Class;

B. For an award of actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, 

punitive damages, and statutory penalties under the FCRA, in an amount to be determined; 

C. For equitable relief enjoining Defendants from engaging in the wrongful conduct 

complained of herein pertaining to, among other things: (1) the failure to properly conduct 

background checks and identity verifications of Uber drivers and/or provide the results of such 

services to Uber, and/or the failure to take appropriate actions to protect the public from 

misrepresentations of prospective or existing Uber drivers that reasonably could have been 

discovered by a proper background check and identity verification; (2) the failure to obtain 

authorization, to notify and/or to provide clear disclosures, as required under the FCRA, for

consumers on whom Uber and Checkr were performing background checks using their names and 

social security numbers; (3) the facilitation of the theft of Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ 

identities by employees/contractors driving for Uber; and (4) the refusal to promptly correct and 

disclose any and all incorrectly filed IRS forms or other tax documents; 

D. For injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff and all Class 

members continuous credit monitoring services, periodic credit reporting, and credit repair 

services, and requiring Uber to file with the IRS and all applicable tax authorities corrected tax 

forms as to Plaintiff and all Class members.

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 29 of 30
30 

E. For an award of costs of suit and attorneys’ fees, as allowable by law; and

F. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all claims so triable.

Dated: December 5, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted,

DAMIAN & VALORI LLP | CULMO

TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 371-3960 

Facsimile: (305) 371-3965 

By: /s/ Kenneth Dante Murena 

Kenneth Dante Murena, Esq.

 Florida Bar No. 147486 

 Email: kmurena@dvllp.com 

 Connor D. Healey, Esq. 

 Florida Bar No. 1030797 

 Email: chealey@dvllp.com

Case 1:22-cv-23961-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 30 of 30