Uber faces fine of nearly $1B over automated driver suspensions

Uber has been hit with a fine of €825 million (about $966 million) by the Dutch Data Protection Authority, marking the second‑largest penalty ever imposed under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. The sanction stems from the regulator’s investigation into Uber’s practice of deactivating driver accounts through an automated system without adequate warning or human oversight. Deputy chair Monique Verdier described the conduct as “serious infringements,” emphasizing that critical decisions should not be left to a computer alone. Uber contends that most suspensions are temporary, that permanent deactivations always undergo human review, and that drivers can appeal the actions; the company has announced its intention to appeal the fine as “disproportionate.”

The case originated from a collective complaint led by former Uber driver Brahim Ben Ali, who, after his own account was deactivated in 2019, gathered testimonies from 170 other drivers and filed the grievance in the Netherlands, where Uber’s European headquarters are based. Ben Ali received assistance from the Swiss digital‑rights nonprofit PersonalData.io, which helped compile data on how Uber’s algorithm made deactivation decisions. According to PersonalData.io founder Paul‑Olivier Dehaye, a single serious complaint can trigger a driver’s permanent removal, even if the driver has completed thousands of satisfactory rides. This fine follows two earlier Dutch penalties against Uber—a €290 million sanction for mishandling drivers’ personal data and a €10 million fine for related violations—both also stemming from the same group of driver complaints.

Dehaye plans to launch a class‑action lawsuit through his new venture, StartClaims, to seek compensation for affected drivers and to pursue further regulatory action against Uber and other gig‑economy platforms. He suggests that the series of fines reflects a broader pattern of systemic issues within Uber’s driver‑management practices. Commentators such as John Gruber have debated the implications, arguing that the fine does not preclude Uber from monitoring driver behavior but does require the company to assume employer‑like responsibility for punitive decisions. The outcome of Uber’s appeal and any ensuing litigation could reshape how gig‑economy firms employ automated enforcement tools across Europe.

⚡ Effects Interpreter