In a ruling across the pond that is sure to have ripple effects across the globe, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled on Friday, February 19, that Uber drivers in Britain should be classified as “workers” and are not self-employed. The distinction is an important one, because it has all sorts of implications for platform companies and for the operating models, which may suddenly be laden with a slew of new costs. Those costs in turn reduce cash flow, which in turn hampers the opportunity to take advantage of new growth opportunities.
As noted by the Associated Press, the ruling in the UK means that Uber drivers may now receive benefits such as paid holidays and minimum wage. Uber has 65,000 drivers in the UK Besides the legal back-and-forth that stretches back over roughly five years in Britain, which has focused on how the workers are classified, there are some finer points to consider. As reported by the newswire, the drivers, under the employee classification, would “be considered to be ‘on the job’ when they are logged into the Uber app … and ready and willing to accept rides.” Uber had contended that workers were only working when they were actually en route with paying passengers.
Delving into the UK’s decision, we read that “claimants were ‘workers’ who, although not employed under contracts of employment, worked for Uber London under ‘workers’ contracts’ … the claimants were working for Uber London during any period when a claimant (a) had the Uber app switched on, (b) was within the territory in which he was authorized to work and (c) was able and willing to accept assignments.”
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Massachusetts AG Sues Insulin Makers and PBMs Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Apple and Amazon Avoid Mass Lawsuit in UK Over Alleged Collusion
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Top Agent Network Drops Antitrust Suit Against National Association of Realtors
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Russian Court Imposes Hefty Fine on Google for Non-Compliance with Content Removal Orders
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand