California Rideshare Drivers Sue Uber Over Alleged Prop. 22 Violations

The case, brought by Rideshare Drivers United, centers on what drivers describe as a black hole of accountability. Thousands of drivers, the group claims, have been kicked off the platform with little explanation and no real opportunity to challenge the decision. For workers whose income depends entirely on app access, deactivation can be financially devastating.

Proposition 22

Approved by California voters in 2020, Proposition 22 was a landmark ballot initiative that allowed companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. In exchange, the companies promised a limited set of benefits, including guaranteed minimum earnings tied to active driving time, healthcare stipends for qualifying drivers, occupational accident insurance, and—crucially—an appeals process for deactivations.

But the lawsuit argues that Uber has not upheld its end of that bargain. According to the complaint, the company has failed to establish a functional appeals system, effectively denying drivers due process. Without meeting those conditions, the plaintiffs contend, Uber should not be allowed to continue classifying drivers as independent contractors under Proposition 22.

The Los Angeles Times reports that some drivers are locked out of the app after a single passenger complaint, often without knowing what they allegedly did wrong. Attempts to appeal, they say, lead to automated chatbots or scripted responses from customer service agents who lack the authority to resolve cases. Drivers describe a frustrating loop of unanswered questions and canned replies.

For instance, Devins Baker told the LA Times that he had given about 18,000 rides for Uber in eight years and boasted a 4.96 rating when his account was unexpectedly terminated just before Christmas in 2024. Devins believes it was a misunderstanding involving a passenger incident, but he was never given a clear explanation or a meaningful chance to defend himself. Others echo similar experiences, saying they were removed from the platform over vague “safety concerns” and left scrambling to find alternative income.

The financial consequences can be severe. Because drivers are classified as independent contractors, they are not eligible for unemployment insurance when they lose access to the app. Some drivers say deactivation has pushed them into debt, housing instability, or entirely new lines of work. For those supporting families, the sudden loss of income can be catastrophic.

Driver advocates argue that the lack of transparency compounds the problem. In addition to the appeals issue, the lawsuit alleges that Uber does not provide sufficient information about earnings, making it difficult for drivers to verify whether they are receiving the guaranteed 120% of minimum wage promised under Proposition 22. There are also claims that drivers are deactivated for reasons not clearly outlined in their contracts.

Uber denies the allegations. The company maintains that it provides a clear and accessible appeals process and complies fully with Proposition 22. In public statements, Uber has characterized the lawsuit as a meritless attempt to undermine a law approved by voters, emphasizing that drivers value the flexibility that comes with contractor status.

The case is the latest in a years-long legal and political struggle over gig worker classification. Proposition 22 itself was the result of a record-breaking $200 million campaign funded largely by gig companies, and it has faced multiple legal challenges since its passage. While the California Supreme Court upheld the law in 2024, questions about its implementation—and enforcement—remain unresolved.

Notably, there is no single state agency tasked with enforcing Proposition 22, leaving much of the burden on private litigation. That gap has created what critics describe as a regulatory gray zone, where companies can claim compliance while drivers struggle to assert their rights.

If the plaintiffs succeed, the implications could be significant. A court ruling that Uber violated Proposition 22 could open the door for drivers to challenge their classification and potentially seek employee status, with access to benefits such as overtime pay, expense reimbursement, and unemployment insurance.

Proposition 22 was pitched as a compromise, offering drivers a middle ground between full employment and independent work. But as this lawsuit suggests, that compromise may be unraveling—one deactivation at a time.

The case is Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott et al., case number 25-2419, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.