Account & Service Control · Company practice
Uber may disable or terminate accounts of users who repeatedly infringe or are repeatedly charged with infringing
It is Uber's stated policy, "in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion", to disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who repeatedly infringe, or who are repeatedly charged with infringing, the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of others. Two points matter: the action is discretionary rather than automatic, and the trigger includes being repeatedly accused ("charged"), not only proven infringement. The rule also reaches "other intellectual property rights", not copyright alone.
Supporting quotations
It is Uber’s policy, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, to disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who repeatedly infringe or are repeatedly charged with infringing the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of others.
Qualifications & exceptions
- Discretionary: "in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion".
- Trigger covers users who "repeatedly infringe or are repeatedly charged with infringing".
- Covers "copyrights or other intellectual property rights of others", not copyright only.
Not stated here
- How many incidents count as "repeatedly" is not stated.
- Whether a successful counter-notice removes a "charge" for this purpose is not stated.
- Whether Uber gives notice before disabling or terminating an account is not stated.
Cross-references
- contrast (model-proposed): After a counter-notice, Uber forwards it and restores the content in 10-14 business days unless sued — contrast: Reviewed tension, not a contradiction: the counter-notice route restores content when a complainant does not sue, yet the account policy may be triggered by users repeatedly charged with infringing, which on its wording counts accusations as well as proven infringement. The policy does not say whether a successful counter-notice removes a charge for repeat-infringer purposes.