Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 148 F. Supp. 3d 884

Plaintiff Caren Ehret sued Uber under California's UCL and CLRA, alleging Uber advertised an automatic 20% "gratuity" for uberTAXI rides but retained about half of that amount.
The challenged representations appeared on Uber emails, blog posts, and website materials during the putative class period (April 18, 2012–March 25, 2013); the Court found the app itself lacked the statement.
Plaintiff took an uberTAXI in Chicago, received an email and a receipt showing a $2.65 "Gratuity & Service Charge," and alleges she relied on representations that the 20% was a gratuity to drivers.
Plaintiff moved to certify a class of all individuals who arranged and paid for uberTAXI rides during the period; the Court narrowed certification to persons who received Uber’s email stating the 20% charge would be gratuity only and who then arranged and paid for rides (April 20, 2012–March 25, 2013).
The Court found Rule 23(a) requirements (ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) satisfied for the narrowed class, but concluded broader class failed Rule 23(b)(3) predominance because exposure to the alleged misrepresentation could not be shown classwide.
The Court certified the limited email-exposure class for UCL and CLRA claims, ordered the parties to meet-and-confer on notice, and set scheduling deadlines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the proposed class is ascertainable and numerosity satisfied	Class membership can be identified from Uber records (emails, transaction logs) and class is large	N/A (Uber did not dispute numerosity/ascertainability)	Ascertainability and numerosity satisfied for the narrowed class
Whether commonality and typicality are met for UCL/CLRA claims	There are common questions (e.g., whether Uber represented 20% was gratuity, materiality, deception) that drive liability; Ehret's claims arise from same course of conduct	Uber asserted individualized issues (who saw which statements, reliance)	Commonality and typicality satisfied (individual variations go to predominance)
Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is met for a class of all uberTAXI users	Misrepresentation was uniform and targeted; exposure can be inferred	Many purchasers never saw emails/blog/website statements; cannot assume classwide exposure	Predominance not met for the broad class; but met for the subclass of recipients of Uber’s email stating "metered fare + 20% gratuity" who then used the service
Whether arbitration clauses or Article III standing defeat certification	Classwide resolution still proper; only named plaintiff needs Article III standing	Arbitration clause and lack of standing for some putative members create individualized issues	Arbitration clause does not defeat certification here; standing satisfied because at least one named plaintiff has Article III standing

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class certification standards and rigorous Rule 23 analysis)
Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc., 802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.) (Rule 23(b) class-type requirements)
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir.) (exposure and advertising scope necessary to infer classwide reliance/exposure)
In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal.) (massive, long-term advertising can permit classwide inference of exposure/reliance)
Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp., 655 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.) (standing in class actions focuses on representative plaintiff)
Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir.) (UCL relief only for those exposed to challenged practice)