Uber and Lyft have landed a victory in their battle to treat drivers as contractors.
In a ruling issued Monday (Mar. 13), California’s 1st District Court of Appeals said that the two ride-hailing firms and other companies like them can continue to treat drivers in the state as independent contractors, and not as employees entitled to worker benefits and protection.
The ruling upholds Proposition 22, a ballot measure backed by voters in 2020 that determined that Lyft and Uber drivers were independent contractors. In 2021, a lower court ruled that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.
“We are pleased that the court upheld the democratic will of the voters and the fundamentals of Prop 22,” Lyft said in on its blog.
“Prop 22 protects the independence drivers value and gives them new, historic benefits. After Prop 22 went into effect, more than 88% of California drivers surveyed said that it has been good for them.”
Related: Uber Considers Sale Of Its Logistics Arm, Uber Freight
As PYMNTS has noted, while Proposition 22 passed by a wide margin – nearly 60% of the vote – some voters later said they felt they were misled.
“I definitely feel deceived,” one voter told The Washington Post. “We all felt that Prop 22 was going to help the drivers, and Uber and Lyft were going to be paying them more, when really they’re just trying to save their own pockets.”
Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, posted a message on Twitter Monday evening saying that calling the ruling disappointing would be an understatement.
“Today the Appeals Court chose to stand with powerful corporations over working people, allowing companies to buy their way out of our state’s labor laws and undermine our state constitution,” she said.
Though the ruling is a setback for labor unions, the court did say companies can’t prevent drivers from joining a union or engaging in collective bargaining.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 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