Description
On 15 January 2021, the Lyon Court of Appeal upheld a first Instance ruling by the Lyon Labour Court delivered on 8 March 2019 according to which the relationship between M. [O] and Uber did not constitute an employment relationship. ruled that an Uber driver shall be classified as an independent contractor, adding that the driver who brought the complaint is ‘free to connect [to the app] when he wants, or not to connect, and hence to not work’.
The court's decision was based on its assessment that the driver failed to prove the existence of a "lien de subordination" (a relationship of legal subordination), which is the defining characteristic of an employment contract in French law. While the driver was registered as an independent worker and presumed not to be an employee, he could have overturned this presumption by proving Uber exercised the control of an employer. The court found he did not.
The court placed significant weight on the freedoms the driver retained, which it found incompatible with an employment relationship.
- The driver had total freedom to choose when and if to connect to the app and for how long.
- No schedule, working hours, or mandatory slots were imposed by Uber.
- No exclusivity clause, meaning the driver was free to work for competitors or find his own clients.
- The driver was free to accept or refuse rides offered to him via the app.
- No geographical area was imposed on the driver.
The court determined that the rules and tools Uber had were not characteristic of an employer's power to give orders.
* Geolocation: The court viewed this not as a tool for monitoring the driver, but as an essential technical feature for the app to function (i.e., to connect drivers and passengers).
* Suggested Itinerary: This was seen as a way to fix the price for the service in the client's interest, not as a binding order from an employer.
* Behavioural Rules: The court likened the "Community Charter" and other rules to a set of specifications or quality standards, similar to what might be found in a franchise agreement, rather than the formal directives of an employer.
The court found that Uber's ability to deactivate the driver's account was not conclusive proof of an employer's disciplinary power.
* Customer Ratings: The rating system is operated by customers, not Uber itself, and therefore cannot be considered a disciplinary tool of an employer.
* Account Suspension: The court acknowledged that the driver's account was suspended for two weeks due to a high rate of cancellations. However, it concluded this was ambiguous. It could be seen either as a disciplinary sanction
or as a commercial partner (Uber) exercising its right to end a contract with another party (the driver) for failing to respect the terms of their agreement. The court found this was insufficient to prove an employer-employee relationship.
Finally, the court dismissed the argument of economic dependence as a factor.
* The court stated that economic dependence alone is insufficient to characterize a relationship of subordination and, therefore, an employment contract.
* It also noted that the driver had not provided evidence that he worked exclusively for Uber.
Most recently, a Belgian administrative commission ruled that an Uber driver should be considered an employee, as the ride-hailing app’s employment conditions prevented him from operating as an independent worker. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) is calling for an EU action on the labour rights of platform workers, pointing to recent rulings in Belgium, Italy and Spain.
Updates (1)
The following recent changes to this court ruling have been recorded.
- 11 September 2025
Final Ruling: The Cour de Cassation (Chambre Sociale) ruled on 25 January 2023, annulling the decision of the Cour d'appel de Lyon and recognising the presence of a subordinate relationship between M. [O] and Uber, which suggests the possibility of employment status. The case was then remitted to the Cour d'appel de Grenoble for further consideration.
- Keywords
-
platform characteristics and business model,
algorithmic management,
employment status
- Actors
-
Platform,
Employee organisation,
Court
- Sector
-
Transportation and storage
- Platforms
-
Uber
France
