Court rules that California Uber drivers could not establish ‘political coercion’

Uber Technologies

A California court has denied an application for a temporary restraining order by the nation’s Uber drivers, saying the drivers could not set the alleged “political coercion” by the ride-hailing business.

The drivers had sued Uber Technologies over in-app messages regarding an upcoming gig worker ballot measure that the drivers say violates a California law protecting their political rights.

The litigation had said that Uber was unlawfully pressuring drivers through the app to encourage the November the 3rd company-sponsored ballot measure, known as Proposition 22. Uber had rejected those claims.

“The application for a temporary restraining order is denied”, Richard Ulmer, judge of Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, stated in his purchase.

The petition for “extraordinary injunctive relief” is belated, the judge wrote, adding that the motorists could not establish if anybody was penalized by Uber for advocating against Prop 22.

Related Article:
Didi and BYD to launch co-designed ride-hailing EV in China

Prop 22 would overwrite California law AB5 intended to force Uber Technologies, Lyft and other app-based companies to classify workers as workers, entitling them to benefits including minimum wage, overtime pay, health and unemployment insurance.

Uber and Lyft state such changes would force them to reduce their California driver base by greater than 75% and prevent the majority of its drivers out of enjoying their current flexibility and earnings opportunities.

Both companies have also threatened to leave the nation if AB5 was enforced.

Uber, Lyft Inc, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates have collectively spent near $200 million to market the ballot proposition and Uber has included messages in its motorist app to promote it.

Last week, a California appeals court ruled against Uber and Lyft, stating they must reclassify their drivers in the state as workers, with both companies saying they were considering all legal options, such as an appeal.

Related Article:
Uber widens taxi app to Japan's Tokyo but ride-sharing still barred

The team at Platform Executive hope you have enjoyed this news article. Initial reporting via our official content partners at Thomson Reuters. Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru. Editing by Kim Coghill.

To stay on top of the latest developments across the platform economy and gain access to our problem-solving tools, databases and comprehensive content sets, you can subscribe for just $14 per month.

Share This Post