Rideshare Drivers United filed a lawsuit against Uber yesterday, accusing the company of routinely cutting drivers off the app without the meaningful appeals process required by Proposition 22. The complaint asks a court to reinstate some drivers, award them back pay and formally rule that Uber has not delivered on the procedural protections it promised under the law. Drivers and their attorneys say vague, automated deactivation notices and boilerplate replies leave workers with no real way to challenge being kicked off the platform.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the suit was unveiled at a news conference and is led by labor attorney Shannon Liss‑Riordan on behalf of Rideshare Drivers United. The group says it represents more than 20,000 app‑based drivers in California and that thousands of them have been deactivated with little or no explanation. Jason Munderloh, who chairs the organization’s Bay Area chapter, told reporters that drivers “want to stand up for themselves” but cannot do that when there is no fair appeals process.
What the lawsuit seeks
As reported by Bloomberg Law, the complaint asks a San Francisco Superior Court judge to issue a statewide ruling that Uber has failed to comply with the Protect App‑Based Drivers and Services Act, better known as Prop. 22. The plaintiffs want drivers they say were unfairly terminated to be reactivated and paid back wages. They also ask the court to weigh whether Uber can keep classifying drivers as independent contractors if it does not follow the law’s procedural safeguards. In their view, those remedies are the only way to make Prop. 22’s promises real rather than marketing language.
Driver accounts: opaque deactivations and automated runarounds
Drivers who spoke at the news conference, and in the lawsuit itself, described brief automated messages and chatbot loops when they tried to contest deactivations, according to CalMatters. One driver named in media reports, Devins Baker, said he had completed about 18,000 trips over eight years and maintained a 4.96 rating before his account was shut down just before Christmas 2024, with no meaningful chance to appeal. Plaintiffs say stories like Baker’s show that Uber’s system falls short of Prop. 22’s requirement for a genuine appeals mechanism.
Uber pushes back
In a statement to Courthouse News Service, an Uber spokesperson blasted the case as a baseless lawsuit by an opportunistic trial lawyer seeking to overturn Proposition 22 and the will of California voters and insisted the company complies with the law’s appeals rules. Uber has posted information on its website explaining its termination and appeals procedures, and the Los Angeles Times noted that the company says every deactivated driver is given a reason and can ask for a review by a real person. Plaintiffs counter that the core question is whether those steps are meaningful and accessible in everyday practice.
Why the stakes are high
Proposition 22, approved by voters in 2020 and later litigated up to California’s highest court, set up a special legal framework for app‑based drivers while promising certain contractual protections, including an appeals process for deactivated workers. Plaintiffs point to briefs and other materials from the Prop. 22 court fights to argue that denying a real avenue to appeal undercuts that basic bargain, as reflected in documents filed with the Supreme Court of California. If a court finds that Uber has systematically failed to comply, the ruling could intensify long‑running arguments over what protections Prop. 22 actually delivers for drivers.
Next steps
The complaint was filed Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, and how quickly the case moves will depend on the court’s hearing schedule and how fast the parties push through motions and discovery, Bloomberg Law reported. Rideshare Drivers United says it will press for relief for drivers who have been deactivated, while Uber has signaled it will vigorously defend both its practices and the integrity of Prop. 22 in court.
