Uber agreed on January 6, 2016, to pay $20,000 to settle New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigations into its handling of rider location data and a separate 2014 breach involving driver information. The payment was tied to delayed notification of that driver-data breach—not a finding that Uber was fined $20,000 simply for operating its internal “God View” mapping tool.
The settlement nevertheless required stronger safeguards for precise geolocation data, including encryption, restricted employee access, authorization procedures and stronger authentication.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $200.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $100.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Uber Physical Gift Card | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $15.00 | Buy on Amazon |
What “God View” was
“God View” was the name used in contemporary accounts for an internal Uber interface that presented an aerial or map-based view of vehicles and rides in real time. New York investigation materials described the system as capable of exposing rider and driver location information alongside other personal data. Uber’s stated operational rationale was to monitor vehicle movements and manage supply, but the privacy concern was whether identifiable trip information could be accessed or used by employees without a legitimate business need.
The name may cover more than one version of Uber’s software. A Hogan Lovells review reported in January 2015 that an early interface had been retired more than a year earlier, while Bloomberg reported that an operations tool masking customer data replaced it. That did not, by itself, answer broader questions about who could access location information or how access was governed.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
- 24/7 safe pickups
- Order from hundreds of local restaurants
- Low-cost and premium options
- Track delivery
- Redemption: Online
Uber’s ordinary service also required location collection to match riders and drivers and monitor trips. The controversy concerned the additional layers of internal visibility: employee access, possible inappropriate use, and public demonstrations or displays involving identifiable rides.
New York investigation materials and contemporary reporting describe the interface and the resulting access-control concerns.
Why New York opened an investigation
The New York Attorney General’s Office began investigating in November 2014 after reports about Uber’s collection, maintenance, disclosure and internal display of rider location data. The inquiry followed publicized incidents involving alleged access to ride-location information. One widely reported episode involved BuzzFeed reporter Johana Bhuiyan, who said an Uber executive told her he had tracked her ride.
Rank #2
- 24/7 safe pickups
- Order from hundreds of local restaurants
- Low-cost and premium options
- Track delivery
- Redemption: Online
That episode and similar accounts were reported allegations that helped trigger scrutiny; the settlement did not adjudicate each allegation as a proven violation. CBS News and the investigation record describe the concerns that prompted the inquiry.
Recommended Free Tools
The $20,000 penalty covered a separate driver-data breach
The dollar amount is best understood by separating the two investigations. Uber discovered as early as September 2014 that unauthorized parties had obtained driver names and driver-license numbers. According to contemporary reports, Uber notified New York authorities on February 26, 2015.
New York treated the delay in notifying affected drivers and the attorney general’s office as the conduct warranting the $20,000 payment. The settlement therefore addressed both the “God View” geolocation investigation and the breach-notification issue, but the fine itself was connected to the late notice of the driver-data breach.
Rank #3
- This card is redeemable via the Uber app within the U.S. in cities where Uber is available.
- Redemption: Mobile App
- No returns and no refunds on gift cards.
| Event | What happened | Source |
|---|---|---|
| September 2014 | Uber discovered the separate breach involving driver names and driver-license numbers, according to contemporary reporting. | PCWorld |
| November 20, 2014 | New York’s attorney general wrote to Uber expressing concern about geolocation practices and “God View.” | Investigation materials |
| November 2014 | New York opened its investigation into rider-location handling. | CBS News |
| February 26, 2015 | Uber notified New York authorities about the driver-data breach, according to contemporary reports. | PCWorld |
| January 6, 2016 | New York announced the settlement: $20,000 plus privacy and security obligations. | CBS News |
What Uber agreed to change
The settlement’s operational requirements were more significant for data governance than the relatively small payment. They included:
- Encryption: Protect rider geolocation information while stored and while transmitted.
- Purpose-limited access: Restrict access to designated employees with a legitimate business reason.
- Technical controls: Use systems that limit and monitor access to sensitive information.
- Formal authorization: Require documented approval procedures before employees could access customer data.
- Stronger authentication: Apply multilevel or otherwise stronger authentication for access to customer information.
- Updated policies: Revise privacy and security practices to reflect those controls.
These provisions addressed the central risk exposed by the controversy: precise location data can be collected for a service purpose yet still be misused if internal permissions, authentication and oversight are weak. Coverage of the requirements appears in Courthouse News, CBS New York and a Congressional hearing record.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Did Uber admit that “God View” tracking was unlawful?
No. The agreement resolved the investigations without a trial, and contemporary reporting said Uber neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing. Uber said it was committed to protecting privacy while accepting the settlement’s requirements. The agreement did not establish that every use of the interface was illegal, nor did it determine that Uber had unlawfully stalked particular riders.
Rank #4
- 24/7 safe pickups
- Order from hundreds of local restaurants
- Low-cost and premium options
- Ratings ensure premium quality
- Track delivery
It also did not necessarily resolve every question about Uber’s internal access to location data. Retiring an earlier interface or masking customer information in a later operations tool would not substitute for continuing controls over permissions, authentication and legitimate business use.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the headline gets wrong
- “The fine was for God View” is incomplete. The settlement covered the geolocation investigation, but the $20,000 penalty addressed delayed notification of the separate driver-data breach.
- “Uber tracked riders” can describe several different things. Normal trip tracking, operational visibility, unauthorized employee access and public display of a ride are not the same conduct.
- “Uber spied on a reporter” overstates the legal record. A reporter alleged that an executive said he had tracked her ride; the settlement did not make that allegation a trial finding.
- “Drivers or riders were paid” is unsupported by the cited coverage. The payment was described as a penalty to resolve the notification issue, not as an automatic consumer compensation program.
Do not confuse this case with Uber’s later 2016 breach
The incident in this New York settlement involved driver names and driver-license numbers discovered in 2014. It was not the much larger Uber breach that occurred in 2016, became public in 2017 and led to a separate $148 million multistate settlement announced in 2018. That later matter involved approximately 57 million users and allegations that the breach was concealed.
California’s attorney general described the later resolution in its 2018 announcement. It should not be used to inflate the scope of the 2016 New York agreement.
Best Value
- 24/7 safe pickups
- Order from hundreds of local restaurants
- Low-cost and premium options
- Ratings ensure premium quality
- Track delivery
Why the settlement still mattered
The case was an early, visible example of regulators treating employee access to precise location data as a governance problem, not merely a product feature. Its practical lesson was that collecting data to deliver a ride does not grant every employee broad visibility into that data. Access must be limited to a stated purpose, technically controlled, authenticated and auditable, while breach-notification duties apply independently when information is compromised.
The Bottom Line
Uber’s January 2016 New York settlement combined a “God View” location-privacy investigation with a separate driver-data breach. The $20,000 payment was for delayed breach notification; the location-data portion produced encryption, access-control, authorization and authentication requirements.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
