The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) has imposed a significant fine of €825 million (approximately $966 million) on Uber, penalizing the company for using automated decision-making to deactivate the accounts of its drivers. This represents the second-largest fine ever issued under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), according to Reuters.
Account Suspension Practices Censured by Dutch Regulator
The Dutch DPA determined that Uber violated GDPR rules by deactivating driver accounts through automated means, often lacking advance notice and meaningful human oversight. In an official statement, Monique Verdier, deputy chair of the DPA, warned against allowing computers exclusive authority over matters as consequential as account deactivation, emphasizing that human judgment remains crucial in such cases.
Some affected drivers were removed from the platform permanently, with no human review involved, which led to concerns about fairness and lack of appeal options. Uber responded by stating that the majority of account suspensions are temporary, and that permanent removals only follow a human assessment. The company also claimed drivers could contest account decisions, although the regulator noted this was not always the case.
An Uber spokesperson criticized the severity of the penalty, described it as disproportionate, and indicated that an appeal would be filed against the DPA’s decision.
Origin of the Case: Drivers’ Complaints and Advocacy Support
This regulatory case began with complaints from a coalition of drivers dissatisfied with how their accounts were being suspended. Former French Uber driver Brahim Ben Ali recounted to Dutch outlet de Volkskrant that his own deactivation in 2019 led him to collect testimonies from 170 other drivers. Their joint complaint was subsequently presented to Dutch regulators, as Uber’s European headquarters are located in the Netherlands. told the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant
Support from the digital rights advocacy group PersonalData.io was instrumental in assisting Ben Ali and fellow drivers as they investigated Uber’s algorithms and their role in deactivation decisions. The organization’s founder, Paul-Olivier Dehaye, highlighted the significant consequences that can arise if just one passenger files a very serious complaint, even after a driver has completed a thousand successful journeys.
Paul-Olivier Dehaye also pointed out that Uber had previously been fined by the Dutch DPA, referencing a €290 million penalty for mishandling personal data and a €10 million fine concerning related privacy issues. Each of these actions originated from complaints submitted by the same group of drivers. Dehaye announced plans to initiate a class action for compensation and introduced StartClaims, a new entity designed to pursue litigation in platform economy and potentially adtech disputes.
Renewed Debates Over Automated Management and Accountability
The ruling revived discussions about the appropriateness of automating disciplinary measures in the gig economy. Blogger John Gruber voiced skepticism, suggesting that such regulatory penalties could discourage companies like Uber from using automation to monitor driver conduct, like cases where drivers purposely avoid picking up customers. He also argued that final accountability still rests with the humans who design and oversee these systems.
In response, Dehaye argued that if Uber were to use human managers for disciplinary actions, the company would be compelled to take on employer-like responsibilities, rather than operating as a neutral platform. “Uber is free to use humans to punish drivers who scam, but then [it] has to take responsibility for this decision making (like ‘being an employer’, not ‘being a marketplace’),” Dehaye remarked.
Ongoing Legal Battle and Implications for the Gig Economy
Uber’s intention to contest the Dutch DPA’s decision sets the stage for a critical test of how digital platforms can deploy automated management within the framework of the GDPR. The outcome could influence how other gig economy firms across Europe implement algorithmic suspensions or discipline—especially where these actions directly impact people’s livelihoods. For now, scrutiny over big tech’s use of workplace automation remains intense, fueled by organized advocacy and legal challenges.