Taken for a Ride: Litigating the Digital Platform Model

 

The ILAW Network is pleased to present this report, Taken for a Ride: Litigating the Digital Platform Model, which attempts to respond to requests from ILAW Network members and others for comparative analysis on the litigation taking place around the world against digital platforms such as Uber, Foodora, Deliveroo and many others.

The opening essay by Jason Moyer-Lee and Nicola Kountouris, surveys the major cases which have been brought by workers against digital platforms concerning the existence of an employment relationship – whether to contest unjust dismissal, to claim a certain wage or benefit or to be able to join a union and benefit from a collective agreement. The essay also takes note of key cases that challenge other aspects of the digital platform model, including for example, the use of arbitration clauses to avoid litigation over employment status. While the trend is certainly towards the finding of an employment relationship, the jurisprudence is mixed among countries (and within countries). The essay usefully frames the caselaw around the many tactics used by the digital platform companies to avoid accountability. The second part of this report is a digest of key judicial decisions concerning digital platforms, including case summaries from every region and related news and analysis.

le full report is currently available in English. The Spanish version of the report will be coming soon.

 

Taken for a Ride: Litigating the Digital Platform Model

FOREWORD

THE “GIG ECONOMY”: LITIGATING THE CAUSE OF LABOUR

The Legal Armoury: “Gig Economy” Corporate Strategies to Avoid Obligations

  • Workers are treated as independent contractors.
  • Indemnity clauses.
  • Three-way contractual nexus.
  • Technology versus transportation services company.
  • Subsidiary versus parent company.
  • Mandatory arbitration clause and large upfront payments to commence claims.
  • Disputes made subject to foreign law.
  • Overcoming laws designed to target them.
  • Running or, better yet, hiding in plain sight.
  • Conclusions.

The Cases: How Workers, Trade Unions, and Governments Have Fared

  • Disregarding the label – substance over form.
  • Understanding digital control.
  • Technology versus transportation services company.
  • Three-way contractual nexus.
  • Subsidiary versus parent company.
  • Mandatory arbitration clauses with large upfront costs.
  • Disputes made subject to foreign law.
  • Overcoming laws designed to target them.

Lessons and Recommendations

  • Litigation strategy.
  • Definitions and approach.
  • Enforcement.

DIGEST OF KEY JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Employee, Independent Contractor or Third Way?

Australie

  • Gupta v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd; Uber Australia Pty Ltd t/a Uber Eats [2020] FWCFB 1698.
  • Rajab Suliman v Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4807 (12 July 2019).
  • Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6836.
  • Pallage v. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 2579.
  • Kaseris v. Rasier Pacific V.O.F. [2017] FWC 6610.

Belgique

  • Dossier n°: 187 – FR – 20200707.

Brésil

  • Marcio Vieira Jacob v. Uber do Brasil Tecnologia Ltda, RR – 1000123-89.2017.5.02.0038.
  • ADPF 449 / DF.
  • Conflito de Competência Nº 164.544 – MG (2019/0079952-0).

Canada

  • Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) v. Foodora Inc. (2020) OLRB
  • Case No: 1346-19-R (“Foodora”).

Chili

  • Alvaro Felipe Arredondo Montoya and Pedidos Ya Chile SPA.

France

  • Mr X v. Uber France and Uber BV Ruling No. 374.
  • Mr B. v. Take Eat Easy (Judgment N 1737).

Allemagne

  • Case No. 9 AZR 102/20.

Italie

  • Cass. n. 1663/2020 (Foodora)
  • Yiftalem Parigi v. Just Eat Italy.

Union européenne

  • B v. Yodel Delivery Network.

Pays-Bas

  • Deliveroo v. Federation of the Dutch Trade Movement (FNV).

Nouvelle-Zélande

  • Atapattu Arachchige v. Rasier New Zealand Limited & Uber B.V.

Afrique du Sud

  • Uber South Africa Technology Services (PTY) Ltd v National Union of Public Service
  • and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) (2018).
  • Uber South Africa Technology Services (PTY) Ltd v National Union of Public Service
  • and Allied Workers (NUPSAW) (2017).

Corée du Sud

  • Do-Hyun Kwak v SoCar et al

Espagne

  • Rider v. Glovo App 23, S.L.

Suisse

  • Cour d’appel civile du Canton de Vaud. Ruling no. P317.026539-190917/380 of 23 April 2020.
  • Décision du 29 mai 2020 n°ATA/535/2020.

Royaume-Uni

  • Uber BV v. Aslam, [2021] UKSC 5.
  • Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) v. RooFoods Ltd. T/A Deliveroo
  • [2018] EWHC 3342.
  • Addison Lee Ltd v Lange & Ors UKEAT/0037/18/BA.
  • Addison Lee Ltd v Gascoigne UKEAT/0289/17/LA.

United States of America

  • Matter of Lowry (Uber Tech., Inc—Commissioner of Labor) 2020 NY Slip Op 07645
  • Islam, et al v. Cuomo, et al, No. 1:20-cv-02328, 2020 WL 4336393 (E.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020)
  • Razak v. Uber Techs,. Inc. 951 F.3d 137 (3rd Cir. 2020)
  • Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903
  • Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

Uruguay

  • Esteban Queimada v. Uber BV.

 Noteworthy Digital Platform Cases Not Determining the Existence of an Employment Relationship

Enforceability of Arbitration Clauses

  • Uber Technologies Inc v Heller, 2020 SCC 16.
  • O’Connor v Uber Techs., 904 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2018).
  • Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., 970 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2020).
  • Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2020).

Competition Law

  • Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.
  • Uber Singapore Technology et. al v. Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore.
  • Chamber of Commerce v City of Seattle, 890 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2018).

Social Protection

  • The Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, et al. [2020] EWHC 3050 (Admin).
  • Ahmed Adiatu & Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB) v HM Treasury [2020] EWHC 1554.

Transportation v. Information Services

  • Star Taxi App SRL v. Unitatea Administrativ Teritoiala et. al.
  • Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain SL.

We acknowledge that this digest is not exhaustive and that there are certainly additional relevant cases concerning digital platforms. The ILAW Network will continue to monitor the developing case law and will issue updates of this digest to ensure it is as comprehensive as possible. Please contact us with additional cases or commentary and we will be sure to include it in subsequent issues. 

We want to thank ILAW Network members who have contributed to many of these cases.

FERMER