A California judge ruled that Uber and Lyft must classify their drivers as employees in a stunning preliminary injunction issued Monday afternoon. The injunction is stayed for 10 days, however, giving Uber and Lyft an opportunity to appeal the decision. Uber said it planned to file an immediate emergency appeal to block the ruling from going into effect.
Uber and Lyft are under increasing pressure to fundamentally alter their business models in California, the state where both companies were founded and ultimately prospered. At issue is the classification of ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation.
In May, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, along with city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, sued the companies, arguing that their drivers were misclassified as independent contractors when they should be employees under the state’s AB5 law that went into effect on January 1st. Becerra later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that could compel the ride-hailing companies to classify drivers as employees immediately. AB5, which was signed into law last September, enshrines the so-called “ABC test” to determine if someone is a contractor or an employee.
“It’s this simple,” California Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman wrote in his ruling, “Defendants’ drivers do not perform work that is ‘outside the usual course’ of their business. Defendants’ insistence that their businesses are ‘multi-sided platforms’ rather than transportation companies is flatly inconsistent with the statutory provisions that govern their businesses as transportation network companies, which are defined as companies that ‘engage in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation.’”
He added, “It also flies in the face of economic reality and common sense… To state the obvious, drivers are central, not tangential, to Uber and Lyft’s entire ride-hailing business.”
Full Content: Reuters
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh