Uber's Federal Law Violation: What Happened And Why?

Uber has been involved in several legal controversies, with some commentators arguing that the company's business model is inherently predicated on breaking the law. One notable example is Uber's refusal to comply with a California law, AB-5, which sought to reclassify gig economy workers as employees. Uber, along with other ridesharing companies, has strongly opposed this legislation, arguing that their drivers are independent contractors and not employees. This dispute has led to legal challenges and threats of non-compliance from Uber, which claims that the law infringes on its First Amendment rights. Uber has also faced legal issues in other states, such as Colorado, where a judge considered blocking a transparency law that would require rideshare companies to disclose certain information about driver earnings.

Uber's refusal to reclassify its drivers as employees

Uber has long been at odds with government officials and has a history of butting heads with them. One of the most notable instances is Uber's refusal to reclassify its drivers as employees, which goes against California's Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5). This bill, often called the "gig worker bill", stipulates that companies hiring independent contractors must reclassify them as employees unless they meet three criteria:

• The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring company in performing their work.
• The worker's work is outside the usual course of the hiring company's business.
• The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business similar to the work performed for the hiring company.

Uber has argued that their business is not providing rides but "serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces." They claim that their customers are the drivers, not the riders, and that they merely provide a platform that connects independent business owners with a client base. However, courts in California have been sceptical of this argument, with one federal judge calling it "fatally flawed."

Uber's refusal to comply with AB-5 stems from the potential impact on their business model and the increased costs associated with reclassifying drivers as employees. Analysts estimate that complying with the law would cost Uber about $500 million per year in California alone. Additionally, Uber argues that the bill would result in a loss of flexibility for drivers and higher prices for customers.

Despite Uber's objections, a California appeals court ruled unanimously against the company, stating that Uber's misclassification of drivers caused irreparable harm by denying them employee benefits. This ruling sets a precedent and narrows Uber's options, forcing them to reconsider their stance on reclassifying their drivers as employees.

Ignoring state and local laws

Uber has a long history of disregarding state and local laws, a practice that is integral to its business model. The company has claimed that it is a technology platform rather than a cab company, allowing it to argue that its drivers are not employees but customers. This sleight of hand has enabled Uber to flout laws that govern the transportation industry.

For example, Uber has refused to comply with California's AB-5, a bill that reclassifies gig economy workers as employees. Despite the bill's passage, Uber's chief legal counsel, Tony West, stated that the company would continue to treat its drivers as independent contractors, not employees. Uber's defiance of AB-5 is indicative of its larger strategy of ignoring laws that threaten its business model. Rather than comply with regulations, Uber has chosen to pay fines, threaten to leave cities, or use its substantial financial resources to rewrite the rules.

Uber's refusal to acknowledge its drivers as employees has also led to legal challenges regarding labour rights. In New Jersey, a Third Circuit appeals court ruled in favour of a case seeking the right of Uber drivers to receive overtime pay for working more than 40 hours per week. Additionally, Uber has faced lawsuits from drivers seeking to end the company's use of forced arbitration.

Uber's business model, predicated on breaking the law, has resulted in mounting scandals and negative public perception. The company's competitive advantage, achieved through intentional illegality, has created a culture of dysfunction and toxic leadership. Despite attempts to rebrand, Uber continues to be associated with rule-breaking and impunity.

The company's exposure to legal claims and potential judgments could lead to bankruptcy, especially as the statute of limitations has not run out in most jurisdictions. Uber's decision to operate outside the law may ultimately threaten its existence and serve as a cautionary tale for other entrepreneurs.

Threatening to leave cities

Uber has had a long-standing issue with threatening to leave cities and has even gone so far as to follow through on these threats. This is due to the company's business model, which is predicated on breaking the law and a dedication to violating the law. Uber has flouted state and local laws, paying small fines, threatening to blacklist cities, and then leaving them altogether.

Uber has shown a pattern of disregarding regulations and attempting to rewrite rules that don't suit its interests. The company has a history of non-compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to labour, transparency, and consumer rights. For example, Uber has fought against legislation that seeks to reclassify its workers as employees, which would grant them benefits and protections. In California, the company threatened to put $30 million into a ballot initiative to repeal the bill. Rather than comply with the law, Uber has chosen to ignore it and continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors.

Uber has also challenged laws that aim to increase transparency and benefit its drivers. In Colorado, the company filed a lawsuit against a law that required rideshare companies to disclose information about driver earnings and fares. Uber argued that the law infringed on its First Amendment rights and "shamed" the company.

The company's refusal to comply with regulations and its willingness to abandon markets rather than adapt to local laws have led to criticism and legal challenges. Uber's actions have been described as a "time-honored tradition as a scofflaw" and indicative of a "culture of dysfunction." The company's exposure to potential legal claims and judgments is significant, and if successfully pursued, these could have a detrimental impact on Uber's operations and finances.

Reclassifying drivers as customers

Uber has long claimed to be a technology platform rather than a cab company, arguing that it is a platform, not a transportation service, and therefore drivers cannot be employees because they are customers. This is despite the fact that Uber has also called its drivers employees when it suits them in litigation.

In 2020, California sued Uber and Lyft for not complying with the state's AB5 law, which requires ride-hail, food delivery, and other app-based workers to be classified as employees entitled to benefits such as unemployment insurance and minimum wage. A California appeals court ruled that Uber and Lyft must reclassify their drivers in the state as employees, stating that the companies' misclassification caused irreparable harm to drivers who, as independent contractors, missed out on employee benefits.

Uber initially refused to comply with the ruling, with the company's chief legal counsel, Tony West, stating that Uber would not treat its drivers as employees under the California bill, despite that being the crux of the legislation. Instead, West insisted that drivers were not a core part of Uber's business and could maintain their independent status.

However, Uber's stance faced further legal challenges, and in 2021, the company's business ran into trouble in the UK as well. The UK Supreme Court upheld a ruling that its drivers were workers, not independent contractors, entitling them to a minimum wage, holiday pay, and pension plans. As a result, Uber was forced to reclassify its 70,000 UK drivers as workers, leading to increased costs for the company and potentially impacting its prospects in the market.

Lawsuits against Uber

Uber has faced a multitude of lawsuits since its launch in 2009, including those from governments, drivers, passengers, and competitors. The lawsuits against Uber can be categorised into four types: car accident liability, sexual assault, wage-theft claims, and misclassification of drivers.

Car Accident Liability

Uber and other ridesharing companies are often sued for car accidents caused by their drivers. According to the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, ridesharing companies have increased motor vehicle accidents and fatalities by roughly 3% in the United States. These lawsuits often involve pedestrians, motorists, and passengers who were injured or killed in crashes involving Uber drivers. Uber's safety report for 2019-2020 indicated that Uber crashes resulted in a total of 107 fatalities.

Sexual Assault

Uber has faced lawsuits due to sexual assaults committed by its drivers. Uber's US Safety Report revealed that they receive about 3,000 to 7,000 reports of possible sexual assault from passengers each year, ranging from touching to kidnapping to rape. The lawsuits claim that Uber should be held accountable for negligent hiring and failing to thoroughly screen drivers for criminal histories. Uber's safety report for 2019-2020 showed a total of 3,824 sexual assault cases during that period.

Wage-Theft Claims

Uber drivers have sued the company for withholding money, with Uber agreeing to pay a total of $290 million in wage-theft settlements. Drivers who were cheated will receive back pay, mandatory paid sick leave, and other benefits. Qualifying drivers can submit a claim to receive the owed funds.

Misclassification of Drivers

Uber has faced lawsuits regarding the classification of its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. In 2014, a class-action lawsuit was filed, which was resolved outside of court in 2019 for $20 million, although Uber denied negligence. Another class-action lawsuit in Northern California resulted in Uber paying $8.4 million to drivers who claimed they were misclassified. Additionally, California's Labor Commissioner is suing Uber for committing wage theft by misclassifying drivers, depriving them of basic rights under California labor law. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and other compensation for drivers.

Frequently asked questions