How the Uber data breach cover-up case unfolded
Federal prosecutors in the Northern District of California charged that Sullivan, while the FTC was investigating Uber's data security, concealed a November 2016 breach of about 57 million user records and 600,000 driver licence numbers from the FTC, arranged a $100,000 bitcoin payment to the hackers in exchange for non-disclosure agreements, and hid the breach from Uber's new management.
As of 30 October 2026 Sullivan's conviction is final after the Supreme Court denied review on 29 June 2026, and Uber's non-prosecution agreement has been in effect since 22 July 2022.
Uber publicly discloses the 2016 incident
Federal charges against Sullivan announced
Uber non-prosecution agreement announced
Non-prosecution agreement with Uber Technologies, Inc.. According to the office's announcement, Uber admitted to and accepted responsibility for the acts of its officers, directors, employees and agents in concealing the 2016 breach from the FTC, and admitted that its personnel failed to report the breach while an FTC investigation was pending. The office cited Uber's cooperation, a new leadership team's disclosure of the breach in late 2017, remediation, an October 2018 FTC order and a $148 million settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Jury convicts Sullivan on both counts
Jury verdict, United States v. Joseph Sullivan. Guilty of obstruction of FTC proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 1505 and misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C. 4.
Sullivan sentenced to probation
Sentence, United States v. Joseph Sullivan. Three years of probation and a $50,000 fine. Reporting states 200 hours of community service were also ordered and that prosecutors had sought 15 months in prison.
Ninth Circuit affirms
Opinion, United States v. Sullivan, No. 23-927. Affirmed the conviction. Held that circuit precedent forecloses a separate nexus instruction for 18 U.S.C. 1505, that any error in the duty to disclose instruction was harmless, that the evidence supported the misprision count and that admitting a hacker's plea agreement was not an abuse of discretion.
Amended opinion issued and rehearing denied
Order and amended opinion, No. 23-927. Issued an amended opinion, again affirming, and denied rehearing en banc.
Supreme Court denies certiorari
Sullivan v. United States, No. 25-1082, order denying certiorari. Denied Sullivan's petition, which asked whether section 1505 requires a jury instruction on a nexus to an agency proceeding.
Related timelines
LA wildfires 2025
On January 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire broke out in Los Angeles County in strong winds, killing 31 people and destroying more than 16,000 structures ac...
Alex Jones Sandy Hook lawsuits
Relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and an FBI agent who responded, alleged that Jones and Free Speech Systems defamed them and inflic...
Binance and Changpeng Zhao case
The US Department of Justice alleged that Binance prioritised growth and profits over compliance with US law, failed to maintain an effective anti-money laundering progra...
Boeing 737 MAX fraud charge
The US Department of Justice charged Boeing with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, alleging that two Boeing 737 MAX technical pilots concealed informa...
Sources
10 records, ranked by type- 1Subject's own statement21 Nov 20172016 Data Security IncidentUber Newsroom (Dara Khosrowshahi) · uber.com
- 2Government document22 Jul 2022Uber Enters Non-Prosecution Agreement Related to 2016 Data BreachUS Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California · justice.gov
- 3Government document5 Oct 2022Former Chief Security Officer Of Uber Convicted Of Federal Charges For Covering Up Data Breach Involving Millions Of Uber User RecordsUS Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California · justice.gov
- 4Government document5 May 2023Former Chief Security Officer Of Uber Sentenced To Three Years' Probation For Covering Up Data BreachUS Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California · justice.gov
- 5Official record12 Nov 2025United States v. Joseph Sullivan, No. 23-927, order and amended opinionUS Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
- 6Official record29 Jun 2026Docket No. 25-1082, Joseph Sullivan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · supremecourt.gov
- 7News report14 Mar 2025Appellate court upholds sentence for former Uber cyber executive Joe SullivanThe Record by Recorded Future · therecord.media
- 8Official record13 Mar 2025United States v. Joseph Sullivan, No. 23-927, opinionUS Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
- 9Subject's own statement12 Mar 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari, Sullivan v. United States, No. 25-1082Supreme Court of the United States (filed by counsel for Joseph Sullivan) · supremecourt.gov
- 10News report5 May 2023Ex-Uber CSO gets probation for covering up theft of data on millions of peopleThe Register · theregister.com
Last updated 30 October 2026. Spotted an error? See corrections. Every event links to the record it comes from. Allegations are attributed to whoever made them.