Uber hauled New York City into federal court on Wednesday, asking a judge to block a newly passed law that restricts when rideshare companies can remove drivers from their apps. In its complaint, the company says the measure would overhaul how it manages safety and driver discipline and would effectively force Uber to retain drivers it considers unsuitable.
In court papers, Uber asked the judge to enjoin enforcement of Local Law 52 of 2026, arguing that the city's rules would unconstitutionally require it to keep drivers it does not want on the platform and would violate the company’s free‑speech and due‑process rights, according to Reuters. The filing says Uber is seeking a permanent injunction and costs and that it objects to a 14‑day notice requirement the company argues could create safety risks for riders.
What Local Law 52 Requires
The ordinance bars high‑volume for‑hire vehicle services from deactivating drivers except for just cause or bona fide economic reasons, requires advance notice in non‑egregious cases, and creates an independent appeals pathway through the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, per the city’s summary of new laws and rules. Local reporting noted that the City Council overrode a mayoral veto earlier this year to pass the measure, which supporters say is meant to curb abrupt, unexplained deactivations that can wipe out a driver’s income.
Drivers And Advocates
Labor groups and driver organizers have welcomed the law as a check on platforms they argue hold too much unilateral power over workers’ livelihoods. “No longer can Uber and Lyft hold the fear of unfair firings over the heads of almost 100,000 drivers in New York City,” Councilmember Shekar Krishnan said in a statement, per Documented.
Uber’s Legal Claims
Uber’s complaint contends the ordinance is overbroad and could shield drivers accused of dangerous or threatening conduct, and it argues that certain notice and disclosure provisions would violate passengers’ privacy by requiring disclosure of alleged‑abuse reports to accused drivers, according to Reuters. The company also challenges the 14‑day notice requirement, saying it could give drivers a window for retaliation and might, in some scenarios described in the complaint, require rehiring drivers for dates going back years.
What Happens Next
The city’s Law Department said it is reviewing Uber’s complaint while agencies prepare for the law’s July 28 effective date, according to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s new‑laws page. If a judge grants preliminary relief, enforcement could be paused while the litigation proceeds; if not, the suit will move to the merits and could produce precedents for other cities weighing similar protections.
Why It Matters
Uber has a history of challenging local regulations in court, and this filing is the latest test of how far municipalities can regulate platform companies’ safety and workforce rules. The outcome will be watched closely by policymakers, drivers’ groups and other jurisdictions considering just‑cause protections for gig‑economy workers.
