Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
In an October 2018 GeekWire Summit fireside chat, Uber chief legal officer Tony West described a company trying to rebuild trust after years of cultural, legal, safety, and privacy controversies. His message was not that Uber had completed a turnaround. It was that the company was attempting an “Uber 2.0” reset under CEO Dara Khosrowshahi—one that paired continued expansion with stronger compliance, safety, transparency, and public-market discipline.
West also argued that the technology industry had reached a watershed moment on privacy. In his view, user consent was necessary but not enough: companies also had to use and protect data in ways people reasonably expected.
Historical note: This article examines a GeekWire interview published October 9, 2018. Statements about Uber’s plans, culture, safety, privacy, and IPO prospects describe that period and should not be read as a current assessment of the company.
A legal chief brought in during a corporate crisis
West joined Uber after serving as PepsiCo’s general counsel and holding senior positions at the U.S. Department of Justice, including associate attorney general. That combination gave him experience with both sides of the legal function: public enforcement and accountability, as well as the practical demands of operating inside a large multinational corporation.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
- we like to ship out right away
In the interview, West said Dara Khosrowshahi’s vision of Uber as a mobility company that could “do the right thing” helped persuade him to accept the job. The scale and difficulty of Uber’s problems were part of the attraction rather than a reason to avoid the company.
He arrived roughly a year after joining a business dealing with sexual-harassment and workplace-culture concerns, lawsuits, leadership turmoil, a damaged reputation, questions about safety and transparency, a major data-breach controversy, the Waymo intellectual-property case, and a fatal crash involving an Uber autonomous-vehicle test car.
That made West’s role broader than defending lawsuits. A chief legal officer at a company operating in transportation, payments, data, employment, and autonomous vehicles has to help shape products, risk controls, public disclosures, relationships with regulators, and the standards by which the company makes difficult decisions.
“Uber 2.0” was a proposed reset, not a completed turnaround
West presented “Uber 2.0” as a broad makeover following the Travis Kalanick era. It involved new leadership, a different internal culture, a repaired external reputation, greater attention to safety and transparency, and a strategy that positioned Uber as more than a ride-hailing application.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The phrase should be understood as the company’s framing of an ongoing transition—not as independent proof that the transition had succeeded. The interview supplied aspirations and executive assurances, but not a complete set of metrics showing that investigations, reporting lines, data controls, safety reviews, or employee experiences had definitively improved.
For readers evaluating a corporate turnaround, that distinction matters. A new CEO, a new legal chief, and a new vocabulary can indicate a change in direction. They do not, by themselves, establish that misconduct has stopped, risks are controlled, or public trust has returned.
West’s case that compliance can support innovation
One of West’s central arguments was that Uber did not have to choose between innovation and compliance. He pointed to insurance for peer-to-peer driving as an example of legal and regulatory infrastructure that could make a new business model possible at scale.
The broader logic is straightforward:
- Rules can create operating certainty. Clear requirements for insurance, licensing, and safety can make it easier to build products that cities, drivers, riders, and investors can accept.
- Legal teams can help design products. Compliance does not have to arrive only as a late-stage veto. It can influence how a service is structured from the beginning.
- Controls can be prerequisites for growth. Transportation platforms cannot scale responsibly without addressing public safety, liability, payments, employment questions, and data protection.
That does not mean every regulation is efficient or that every compliance program works. Controls can add cost, slow experimentation, and create conflicting obligations across jurisdictions. West’s point was narrower and more practical: at Uber’s scale, ignoring those systems was not a viable innovation strategy.
From ride-hailing app to mobility platform
West described Uber as expanding into bikes, scooters, and partnerships with cities and municipalities. The company’s ambition was to become part of local transportation systems rather than remain only an app for requesting car rides.
That change also widened Uber’s regulatory footprint. Transportation rules are local, and a scooter program raises different questions from a ride-hailing service. Vehicle safety, sidewalk use, insurance, charging, parking, accessibility, and infrastructure all require decisions that may differ from one city to another.
City partnerships can provide legitimacy and access, but they also bring public accountability. A mobility platform must negotiate not only with customers and contractors but with transportation agencies, elected officials, residents, and communities affected by its operations.
West’s description therefore represented both a growth opportunity and a governance challenge. The more categories of transportation Uber entered, the more important locally tailored strategies and dependable compliance systems became.
Rank #3
Why the data breach changed the privacy conversation
West treated the data-breach controversy as part of a larger technology-industry reckoning. His key distinction was between formal consent and substantive trust.
Formal consent means a user accepts terms, permissions, or disclosures. Substantive trust asks a different question: Does the company collect, secure, use, retain, share, and disclose information in ways that people could reasonably expect?
Those standards can diverge. A company may include a disclosure in its terms while still surprising users through its actual conduct. A technically valid permission does not automatically make data handling responsible, understandable, or worthy of confidence.
West’s comments were a governance and policy argument, not a complete statement of privacy law. Applicable legal obligations vary by jurisdiction and by the type of information involved. But the principle has direct business consequences: a privacy failure can become a security problem, a regulatory problem, a disclosure problem, and a brand problem at the same time.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFor a company preparing for public markets, investors would reasonably want to know more than whether users had clicked “accept.” They would want evidence of security controls, incident response, access management, retention policies, oversight, and timely disclosure of material risks.
The IPO was a test of readiness, not proof of rehabilitation
In 2018, Uber was widely associated with expectations of an initial public offering, as was Lyft. West resisted portraying the situation as a race and emphasized execution at scale over a particular timetable. He did not announce a definitive offering date in the interview.
Rank #4
- Author: Bungay Stanier, Michael.
- Publisher: Page Two
- Pages: 244
- Publication Date: 2016-02-29
- Edition: 1
An IPO would have raised the stakes across the company. Public-market scrutiny would extend beyond growth and valuation to questions such as:
- Were governance and internal controls strong enough for a public company?
- How could unresolved litigation affect the business?
- Were safety and privacy risks clearly disclosed?
- Could Uber explain its financial performance and path to sustainable operations?
- Did the company’s public narrative match the experience of drivers, riders, employees, cities, and regulators?
Going public is not the same as overcoming a scandal. A listing can provide capital and impose disclosure obligations, but it does not certify that a company’s culture is healthy or that its operational risks have disappeared. The interview’s IPO language should therefore be read as a 2018 discussion of anticipated public-market scrutiny, not as a record of a completed offering or its later performance.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe Waymo settlement and the value of removing uncertainty
West characterized the Waymo litigation as carrying substantial history and baggage, including disputed messages and conflict from the previous period. He presented the settlement as a chance to turn Google from an adversary into a partner through increased investment, while maintaining that Uber’s technology was its own.
For a technology company approaching public markets, resolving major litigation can reduce uncertainty and make commercial relationships easier. But a settlement does not necessarily resolve every disputed factual question, and West’s comments represented Uber’s position rather than an independent adjudication of the underlying allegations.
The strategic lesson is more limited: litigation resolution can change the company’s risk profile and relationships even when the parties do not agree on every aspect of the past. It should not be treated as proof that Uber’s technology had been independently validated.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.The autonomous-vehicle crash exposed the limits of assurances
West also addressed the fatal 2018 crash involving pedestrian Elaine Herzberg and an Uber test vehicle. He said the industry needed to learn how to build a stronger safety culture and create incentives for safe decisions throughout product development.
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
That framing points to more than a single technical failure. Safety depends on testing standards, operational safeguards, human oversight, escalation procedures, management incentives, and the willingness to delay a launch when evidence demands it.
West expressed confidence that Uber was developing a safety culture, while acknowledging that he could not predict the future. That qualification is important. An executive’s commitment to safety is not the same as demonstrated improvement. A serious evaluation would require evidence about testing, reporting, independent review, incident disclosure, and how safety concerns affect product and business decisions.
Trust has to be demonstrated through conduct
West appealed to users who had deleted Uber’s app to give the company another chance. His standard was that people should judge Uber by its actions as well as its statements, and that trust had to be earned continuously.
That standard can be applied concretely. Readers evaluating whether a corporate reset is real can ask:
- Are safety policies visible, understandable, and consistently enforced?
- Does the company disclose serious incidents promptly and clearly?
- Are privacy practices predictable rather than hidden in complex terms?
- Can drivers, riders, regulators, and cities obtain meaningful explanations?
- Are investigations and accountability mechanisms sufficiently independent?
- Does the company accept financial and operational costs when safety or compliance requires them?
The 2018 interview did not answer those questions independently. It documented how Uber’s legal chief wanted the company’s transition to be understood.
What the interview ultimately reveals
West’s appearance captured a pivotal argument about technology companies moving from aggressive expansion to institutional accountability. Uber wanted to keep innovating, enter more areas of transportation, settle major disputes, prepare for public ownership, and rebuild its reputation—all while persuading users and regulators that its behavior had changed.
The strongest part of the argument was its recognition that legal compliance, privacy, safety, and trust are not separate from the business. They determine whether a platform can operate at scale. The weakest point, necessarily, was the gap between promises and proof. “Uber 2.0” described an intended direction; it did not establish a completed transformation.
That is also why the interview’s privacy message mattered beyond Uber. Consent, disclosures, and formal compliance are only part of responsible technology governance. The harder test is whether a company’s conduct matches what people were led to expect—and whether it can demonstrate that match when something goes wrong.
Read the original GeekWire interview recap for the full 2018 context, including the fireside chat at the GeekWire Summit.
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.
