Connect with us

Business

New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how

Published

on

New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how

A gig drivers organization filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging the company violated their rights by not providing a sufficient appeals process for deactivated accounts.

The lawsuit was announced Monday during a news conference by Rideshare Drivers United, an independent organization that represents more than 20,000 app-based drivers in California.

The organization, represented by attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, said thousands of drivers have been terminated with little to no explanation, many of whom had worked as drivers for years and had high ratings.

“Drivers want to stand up for themselves and for basic fairness, and we can’t when there is no fair appeals process,” said Jason Munderloh, the chairman of the organization’s Bay Area chapter.

The lawsuit is the latest in a long battle between drivers and major ride-hailing service companies. Uber, a frequent target of lawsuits, has often faced claims of labor violations and vehicle collisions.

Advertisement

The tension could reach the November ballot, as the ride-hailing giant attempts to curb the laundry list of legal action. Uber is advocating for legislation that could cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases.

Rideshare Drivers United said Monday that Uber is violating Proposition 22, which passed in 2020 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. The legislation was a win for gig economy companies, allowing them to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain requirements are met.

Uber is violating a clause in the proposition that requires the company to provide an appeals process for drivers who are terminated, the organization said.

“Uber has had six years of hiding behind Prop. 22 on issues favorable to it and ignored the law when it seemed inconvenient,” Munderloh said.

The lawsuit seeks a statewide judgment that Uber has failed to comply with Proposition 22, along with an opportunity for the thousands of deactivated drivers to appeal their terminations. The suit also seeks reactivation and back pay for drivers who were unfairly terminated.

Advertisement

Uber denied the claims in the lawsuit and reaffirmed that it offers a clear appeals process, in compliance with Proposition 22, a spokesperson told The Times.

“This is a baseless lawsuit by an opportunistic trial lawyer seeking to overturn Proposition 22 and the will of California voters,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll fight this publicity stunt in court while continuing to strengthen drivers’ voice on the platform.”

The company posted on a blog Friday that details its termination and appeals process. Every deactivated driver is given a reason for termination and offered a review process for more information. Drivers can then appeal, and the appeal is evaluated by a real person, according to the website.

Rirdeshare Drivers United said drivers are often terminated for vague reasons and are met with endless automated chatbots when inquiring about their terminations.

Drivers who request an appeal are either automatically denied or given the runaround without being offered an actual appeals process, Liss-Riordan said.

Advertisement

Devins Baker had given about 18,000 rides for Uber in eight years and boasted a 4.96 rating when his account was unexpectedly terminated just before Christmas in 2024. An automated message from the company claimed Baker had driven recklessly and offered no other information, he said.

He wasn’t told what resulted in his termination, but said that during his last ride, he had to drive defensively to avoid crashing into a vehicle that was merging recklessly on the freeway.

Baker had to hit the brakes to avoid the collision, and the passenger, who wasn’t wearing a seat belt, fell off the seat.

Baker was not offered a chance to appeal, he said.

Proposition 22 carved out a new classification for gig economy workers, affording them limited benefits, but not the rights granted to full-fledged employees.

Advertisement

The legislation received strong financial backing from Uber.

A group of drivers challenged Proposition 20 in 2024, claiming the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the state Legislature’s authority to provide workers’ compensation protections to drivers. Their claims were ultimately rejected by the state’s highest court.

Ride-hail drivers have long raised concerns about low wages, minimal workplace protections and exploitative practices.

More recently, they have grappled with rising gas prices amid the war in the Middle East, which has driven some away from the ride-hailing business.

“The pay is not good in the first place. We do what we can to create a solid framework for ourselves and our families,” said Munderloh, who works as a part-time Uber driver. “It’s hard enough with how little they pay us, and then even that is taken away.”

Advertisement

Various gig companies, including Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, have said Proposition 22 is a crucial component of their businesses and threatened to shut down in the state if the proposition were struck down. These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to sway voters on the proposition.

Business

‘Moana’ debuted just 10 years ago. Why Disney is remaking it as a live-action movie

Published

on

‘Moana’ debuted just 10 years ago. Why Disney is remaking it as a live-action movie

In 2016, Walt Disney Co.’s “Moana” became a box office hit, captivating audiences with catchy earworms from Lin-Manuel Miranda and a spunky young heroine who rejected the label of princess.

Now, just 10 years later, it’s the latest Disney animated film to be given the live-action treatment.

Burbank-based Disney has long reached into its vault in search of animated classics to redo in a live-action format. But a decade is the shortest time between one of the company’s original animated movies and the reimagined film. (2025’s “Lilo & Stitch,” which originally debuted in 2002, is the next closest with a gap of 23 years.)

Why go back to “Moana” so soon? The Polynesian wayfarer is extremely popular.

The 2016 animated film grossed more than $643 million at the global box office, then spawned a 2024 sequel that made more than $1 billion worldwide. The original is the most-watched movie in Disney+ history with more than 1.5 billion hours of viewing.

Advertisement

“Every once in a while in Hollywood, we make a film that is more than a film,” actor Dwayne Johnson, who reprises his role as the demigod Maui, said onstage during the movie’s premiere Tuesday at the Hollywood Bowl after a Polynesian dance performance. “I think you could feel it already tonight, with our culture and with what we have represented. But also not only our Polynesian culture … it’s also a shared culture around the world.”

The latest “Moana,” out this weekend, will join a cadre of family films at the multiplex.

That includes Disney and Pixar’s “Toy Story 5,” which has now racked up more than $774 million worldwide, and Universal Pictures and Illumination’s “Minions & Monsters,” which debuted domestically last week to a softer-than-expected opening of $62 million for the five-day Fourth of July holiday weekend.

The weaker haul for “Minions & Monsters” has led to questions about whether there are too many family films in theaters, which could affect the reception for the latest iteration of “Moana.” But as the last of this summer’s trio of major animated films, the runway could be clear for the film to build steam.

“I don’t think two movies make saturation,” said Andrew Cripps, head of theatrical distribution for Walt Disney Studios. “There’s a huge fanbase for the ‘Moana’ franchise.”

Advertisement

But with two “Moana” movies in the last decade, will audiences flock to another film? Analysts are expecting an opening weekend haul of $75 million, though studio estimates are closer to $60 million to $65 million. The film’s production budget is about $250 million.

“When you look at these massive movies that were just incredible — ‘The Lion King,’ ‘Aladdin,’ ‘Beauty and the Beast’ — they were brought back after years and years,” said David A. Gross, who writes the industry newsletter FranchiseRe. “I think there’s an argument that says absence makes the heart grow fonder with some of these. We’ll see.”

Early reviews of the film have been mixed, and “Moana” has so far notched a 37% rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The movie is a nearly frame-by-frame re-creation of the original.

Disney’s live-action remakes have largely been box-office boons for the company, with a few exceptions.

In the last 16 years, five films have grossed more than $1 billion globally, including 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast” and 2019’s “The Lion King” and “Aladdin.” (Other live-action spin-offs based on classic animated movies, such as 2024’s “Mufasa: The Lion King” and 2014’s “Maleficent,” also had solid performances.)

Advertisement

“It goes back to the original [intellectual property] of these movies,” Cripps said of the importance of live-action films for Disney’s slate. “People grow up with it, they become fans of it, they live with it. When you’ve got IP that resonates so well literally around the world with fans, I just think it’s a clever extension.”

There have been some notable misfires, including last year’s “Snow White,” which cratered at the box office amid a myriad of controversies, including racist backlash to the casting of Rachel Zegler, who is of Colombian descent, as the titular princess, its depiction of little people and its lead actors’ views on the Israel-Hamas war.

In general, live-action retellings have also typically performed well overseas — a marketplace that isn’t always reliable these days.

Across 13 recent live-action films from Disney and other studios, all made more than 60% of their global box office revenue in international markets, Gross said.

By comparison, films across all genres typically bring in about half of their revenue overseas, he said.

Advertisement

“When these movies connect,” Gross said, “they work everywhere.”

Continue Reading

Business

Meta discontinues Instagram feature on new AI image generation tool after Hollywood backlash

Published

on

Meta discontinues Instagram feature on new AI image generation tool after Hollywood backlash

A new tool that let people take publicly posted Instagram photos and use AI to generate new images from them drew such a big backlash in Hollywood that Meta has discontinued one of the features.

Instagram’s parent company, Meta, on Tuesday rolled out the new AI tool, called Muse Image, which makes it easy to “turn your ideas into high-quality visuals you can download and share anywhere.”

In a promotional video, Meta showed examples like adding a friend into a band photo.

But the tool came under fire from talent agencies, managers and union officials. They noted that many Instagram accounts were opted in by default, allowing users to manipulate the image and likeness of celebrities without their consent.

“I just think it’s wrong again to expect people to opt themselves out of something that literally has been proven to be able to create harm,” said Kyle Hjelmeseth, chief executive of Los Angeles-based influencer talent management firm G&B.

Advertisement

By Friday, Meta said a feature on Muse Image that helps pull photos from public Instagram accounts was no longer available.

“Earlier this week, we announced that one way for people to generate images in Meta AI is by @-mentioning public Instagram accounts that they want to reference,” Meta said in a blog post. “Our intent was to provide a useful creative tool and to give people control over whether their public content could be referenced in this way. We’ve heard the feedback that this feature missed the mark, so it’s no longer available.”

Creative Artists Agency, which raised concerns to Meta on behalf of its clients, commended the tech company for its swift decision.

“Putting individual rights and consent at the forefront is essential to building responsible technology,” the Century City-based talent agency said in a statement. “We look forward to ongoing conversations to ensure creators stay protected as technology evolves.”

Hollywood has long been wary of AI, after a string of deepfakes — videos or images depicting celebrities doing or saying things they never authorized. Jamie Lee Curtis and others have appeared in ads for products they never endorsed. Last year, OpenAI’s Sora 2 video tool drew outrage in Hollywood after users conjured up dead celebrities without their estates’ consent. OpenAI later said it would give rights holders more granular controls.

Advertisement

After Meta rolled out its new tool, there was immediate backlash from Hollywood.

“Anything other than a clear and conspicuous OPT-IN for these types of uses of Instagram users’ images is unacceptable, and an utter miscalculation of public sentiment regarding the obvious dangers and harms inherent in such use,” performers union SAG-AFTRA said in a statement.

United Talent Agency was also critical of Meta, saying it demands opt-in for the use of likeness, image and intellectual property of its clients on any platform.

“The use of such property without OPT-IN consent, credit and compensation is exploitation, not innovation,” the Beverly Hills-based talent agency said.

Meta’s initial response on Wednesday was that users can choose to opt out of having their photos used by Muse Image by changing their settings.

Advertisement

“We built Muse Image with strong controls and safety guardrails from day one,” Meta said in a statement. “Private accounts and those belonging to users under 18 are automatically excluded and adult users with public accounts can opt out with just a couple clicks. We will take action against any content that violates our Community Standards.”

Two days later, Meta removed a key feature from Muse Image, saying it received feedback that it “missed the mark.”

The launch fits a familiar Silicon Valley pattern — ship products first, ask for forgiveness later.

“They leverage their scale to make it easy to use the tools as well as to scale out the content that is available,” said Mickey Maher, chief business officer at Vermillio, which tracks people’s digital likenesses and intellectual property. “It’s not unique to this Meta product.”

Others said opt-out should be the default.

Advertisement

“This dark pattern of AI overreach, where essentially it’s a free-for-all when it comes to your content, information, is something that nobody actually wants,” said Lori Fena, former chair and executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founder of New York-based Personal Digital Spaces. “What we need in this new AI ecosystem is the ability to create trust and to have some sort of understanding and authenticity, and this does exactly the opposite.”

Continue Reading

Business

Legendary Television City may be be sold in further blow to Hollywood

Published

on

Legendary Television City may be be sold in further blow to Hollywood

Television City, one of the most famous studios in the entertainment industry where generations of TV shows have been created, is expected to hit the market again as its owner grapples with debt.

It’s the latest sign of distress in Hollywood as the film and TV industry struggles from a sharp falloff in production activity across Southern California.

Television City’s owner, Hackman Capital Partners, is already in the process of selling the historic Radford Studio Center, which gave L.A.’s Studio City neighborhood its name. Hackman defaulted on a $1.1-billion mortgage in January and investment bank Goldman Sachs took over the property, which is now escrow for a sale to Netflix.

The sprawling Television City property is one of the most desirable locations in Los Angeles, sharing fences with the Original Farmers Market and the luxury Grove outdoor shopping center, each of which attracts millions of visitors every year.

Advertisement

If the studio at Beverly Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue where “American Idol,” “All in the Family” and scores of other shows were filmed becomes available as expected, the owners of the Grove and the Farmers Market would be among the likely contenders for the property for potential expansion of their businesses, said sources familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.

Grove owner Rick Caruso was among the bidders for Television City, formerly known as CBS Television City, last time it was on the market and could emerge as a possible bidder.

The highest bid when broadcaster CBS sold the studio in 2019 came from Hackman Capital Partners, an international movie studio operator and commercial property landlord that paid $750 million for the 25-acre site that is near Hollywood, Beverly Hills and and the Sunset Strip.

Hackman Capital’s plan to recoup its investment included continuing to operate Television City as a studio for rent while adding new revenue-generating features.

Last year the city approved Hackman Capital’s $1-billion plan to add 980,000 square feet of offices, sound stages, production facilities and retail space.

Advertisement

The original studio designed by famed Los Angeles architect William Pereira erected in 1952 has city landmark protections, but newer structures on the property do not and there are acres of surface parking that could be converted to other uses.

Both Caruso and Farmers Market owners A.F. Gilmore have sued to limit the planned expansion of the studio, calling it a “massively scaled” development that “would overwhelm, disrupt, and forever transform the community.”

The debate over the development has played out amid a serious downturn in the region’s entertainment industry, with studios shifting film and television production to Georgia, New Mexico and other out-of-state locations.

L.A.’s entertainment industry also suffered a series of blows including the COVID-19 shutdown, strikes by writers and directors in 2023 and cutbacks at studios that reduced demand for sound stages.

A group of Hackman Capital’s lenders led by Deutsche Bank filed a notice of default last month, saying they’re owed more than $357 million. Hackman Capital is still trying to renegotiate its debt.

Advertisement

“The studio market is evolving, and the financing environment for studio assets remains complex,” Chief Executive Michael Hackman said in a statement. “We are engaged in active discussions with our lending partners and are carefully evaluating all of the alternatives.”

A person familiar with the process but not authorized to speak about it publicly said Hackman Capital will be hard-pressed to pay its debt in light of challenges facing the industry. The notice of default is “the baby step to put Television City in play” for new buyers, the source said, “and it is in play.”

Already in play is Manhattan Beach Studios, another Hackman Capital property encumbered by a $240-million loan from Deutsche Bank that the lender is in the process of selling. A buyer could foreclose on the property and potentially change its use to advanced manufacturing such as aerospace or defense, which is in high demand in Southern California.

Brokerage Cushman & Wakefield, which is managing the sale, emphasized in marketing materials that the 22-acre site has “significant available power capacity” and “offers flexible uses” on “some of the most irreplaceable underlying land in the South Bay.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending