Listen to the article
California Drivers Group Sues Uber Over Alleged Violation of Prop 22 Promises
Rideshare Drivers United, a California organization representing approximately 20,000 drivers, filed a lawsuit Monday against Uber, alleging the ride-hailing giant has failed to create a proper appeals system for drivers who are kicked off the platform. The suit claims this failure violates Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative passed in 2020 that allowed gig companies to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.
The legal challenge, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, argues that since Uber hasn’t fulfilled all the promises made in Prop 22, it should no longer be permitted to classify its drivers as independent contractors. Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has a long history of legal battles with gig economy companies, is representing the drivers group.
“Uber has not met the conditions to take advantage of Prop 22,” Liss-Riordan told CalMatters. She explained during a news conference in San Francisco that she’s seeking a court declaration that Uber is violating the very law it helped create, which could benefit drivers pursuing individual arbitration cases.
The lawsuit highlights a common complaint among deactivated drivers who report significant difficulties when attempting to appeal their removal from the platform. Many describe an impersonal process that begins with automated responses before eventually reaching overseas agents who appear to work from scripts and lack authority to meaningfully address their situations.
Devins Baker, an eight-year veteran driver in the Bay Area, shared his experience of being deactivated by Uber just before Christmas 2024. He believes the action came after an incident where he had to brake suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian on the freeway, causing an unbuckled passenger to fall from their seat. Baker became emotional during the news conference, explaining he’s struggling financially and fears becoming homeless.
“I don’t know because we never find out which passenger complained,” Baker said, suggesting some passengers report drivers to obtain free rides from Uber.
Another driver, Mirwais Noory from the Bay Area, described being deactivated in November 2024 over alleged safety concerns. Despite attempting to provide dashcam footage to support his case, Noory says his appeals went nowhere. As the sole income provider for four children, the deactivation has caused significant financial hardship.
“It has turned my life upside down,” Noory told CalMatters.
Jason Munderloh, chair of the Bay Area chapter of Rideshare Drivers United, emphasized the severe consequences of deactivation: “Once they’re deactivated, there is no unemployment insurance. This leads to poverty and desperation.”
Prop 22, which was approved by California voters in 2020, included several promises to drivers, including guaranteed minimum earnings of 120% of minimum wage for active ride or delivery time, healthcare stipends for qualifying drivers, occupational accident insurance, and “mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes.” However, the initiative’s text does not specifically outline requirements for the appeals process.
Uber spokesperson Ramona Prieto defended the company, calling Liss-Riordan an “opportunistic trial lawyer” and describing the lawsuit as a “publicity stunt” that Uber will fight in court. Prieto insisted that Uber does provide drivers with a clear appeals process, referencing a company blog post published last week that outlines the deactivation challenge process.
The legal action represents the latest in a series of challenges to Prop 22, which was heavily backed by gig economy companies. Uber alone contributed $59.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions to the $205 million campaign, while Postmates, which Uber acquired in 2020, added another $13.3 million. Other major backers included DoorDash, Lyft, and Instacart.
Nicole Moore, president of Rideshare Drivers United, noted that deactivation concerns rank second only to pay among the organization’s members.
Beyond the appeals process issue, the lawsuit also alleges that Uber deactivates drivers based on grounds not specified in its “Platform Access Agreement” and fails to provide drivers with sufficient earnings information to verify they’re receiving the promised 120% of minimum wage.
This case comes as Uber also faces a separate lawsuit from the California Justice Department and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego over thousands of wage-theft claims predating Prop 22. That case has a trial-clock deadline set for December 2027.
The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 22 in 2024, though CalMatters has reported that no state agency has been specifically assigned to enforce the law’s provisions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This is an interesting legal challenge to Prop 22. Drivers deserve clear and fair deactivation policies, especially for a law that was touted as protecting their livelihoods.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. I’ll be curious to see how the courts balance the needs of drivers and the flexibility of the gig model.
Agreed. There are legitimate concerns about worker protections, but also the value of flexible work arrangements. Finding the right balance will be key.
Violations of Prop 22 could undermine the entire premise of the law. Uber should make good on its commitments to drivers if it wants to maintain their contractor status.
Absolutely. Prop 22 was sold as a compromise, but if companies don’t follow through, the courts may need to revisit the contractor classification.
The lawsuit raises important questions about the adequacy of the appeals process for deactivated drivers. Uber should ensure due process is in place.
This could have significant implications for the gig economy in California. Curious to see how the courts interpret the requirements of Prop 22 in this case.
Rideshare drivers are an essential part of our transportation infrastructure. I hope this lawsuit leads to more transparency and fairness in how they are treated.
It seems Uber may not have upheld all the promises made in Prop 22. Gig companies need to ensure their policies align with the letter and spirit of the law.