Connect with us

Business

Looking for a ride to soccer practice? California teens can now use their own Uber accounts

Published

on

Looking for a ride to soccer practice? California teens can now use their own Uber accounts

Forget a bike or the city bus, California teens can now grab a solo Uber ride to their desired destination with a new product launched by the company statewide Thursday.

The company’s teen rides program allows children aged 13 to 17 to operate their own Uber accounts — hail their own transportation and order food — after parents add them to a family profile. Parents get a notification each time their teen orders a ride or a meal and adults can put limits on spending for each service through the app.

Uber has prohibited minors to ride without an adult for years, but many teens have attempted to create their own accounts anyway. Drivers are allowed to ask for an ID to verify age and are told to turn down the fare if the person is an unaccompanied minor requesting a ride through the traditional Uber app. Lyft, the company’s main rival, doesn’t allow minors to ride without an adult.

The goal of the teen program, Uber executives say, is to make parents’ and their kids’ lives easier. Teenagers’ schedules seem more packed than ever and the stress of ferrying teens to multiple activities during the day can be a challenge for working parents, said Sachin Kansal, the vice president of product management at Uber.

“Transportation for their teens ends up being one of the biggest stress points in their lives,” Kansal said. “I have a 14-year-old and every Saturday my wife and I have to sit down and plan out our transportation schedule — who will pick up, who will drop off. It’s a huge logistical challenge.”

Advertisement

The San Francisco-based company began piloting teen accounts in 2022 in Canada and, months later, expanded testing in several U.S. cities. With the addition of California this week, Uber teen accounts are available in more than 250 cities across all 50 states, according to the company.

The teen rides will come with extra safety measures including live-trip tracking so parents can watch their teen’s ride on a map. Parents will receive the driver’s name, vehicle information, phone number and the requested drop-off location at the start of each trip, according to Uber.

Teens will be required to give the driver a PIN — generated each time they request a ride — and drivers will not be able to start the trip until they have the correct PIN. This ensures the teen is in the correct vehicle, Kansal said.

The company will use sensors and GPS data to detect if a ride veers from the normal course or ends too early. If that occurs, the app will message the teen, their parent and the driver to check in. The app also records audio of each trip using the teen’s phone. The audio file, which is encrypted, is stored on the app and accessible only if a user files an incident report with the company, according to Uber.

Sergio Avedian, who has been driving for Uber for eight years in Los Angeles, received a notification on his app Thursday morning that he’s eligible to accept ride requests from teens. But he’s not planning to participate, he said.

Advertisement

Avedian, who is a senior contributor at the gig workers’ resource the Rideshare Guy, said while it’s smart for Uber to lock in future customers while they’re still teens, he’s concerned about how the change will affect drivers. The app doesn’t have a curfew, so a teen could take a trip in the middle of the night without parental consent. This could be fixed, he said, by requiring that parents send a text or push a button on the app to approve rides and food delivery.

When Uber was testing the teen accounts, Kansal said the company heard from parents that they specifically didn’t want to have to approve their child’s rides or food orders, other than being able to control the amount they spend.

Avedian also has concerns about whether drivers will be penalized for picking up other teens, possibly without teen accounts, if the child who requested the ride decides to bring friends. Drivers will be required to make sure those guests have permission from a parent or guardian to ride in an Uber, he said.

“It creates a dilemma for me,” he said. “Every time a driver has to make a judgment call like that, parents will complain to Uber and I may get deactivated because of it. Uber has done good things as far as safety and security, but there’s also a bunch of holes in the product.”

Uber said only highly rated and experienced drivers will be able to accept teen rides. All drivers on the platform are required to pass an annual background check that includes driving records and a criminal history. The company, along with other rideshare apps, has faced scrutiny over customer safety.

Advertisement

Uber does not use fingerprint-based background checks, which are generally considered the highest standard for employee screenings because they can identify applicants who use an alias or attempt to lie about their records. Those enhanced background checks are not required in California for rideshare companies. HopSkipDrive, a transportation service that parents use to book solo rides for their kids as young as 6, conducts a higher level background check on its drivers, including fingerprinting, according to its website.

Kansal said he feels safe allowing his own daughter to use the Uber teen service.

“In the back of my mind as we were building this project was the fact that… I’m going to be putting my own teen in the car and how would I feel as a parent about the safety,” Kansal said. “I feel very good about the product.”

Advertisement

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading

Business

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Published

on

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.

If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.

Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.

As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.

Advertisement

Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.

“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”

The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.

The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.

While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.

Advertisement

The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.

The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.

“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”

The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”

Advertisement

While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.

“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”

The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.

As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.

Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.

Advertisement

Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”

While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.

“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”

Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.

Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.

Advertisement

“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending