The Dutch Data Protection Authority is fining Uber €825 million (around $966 million), making it the second-largest penalty issued under Europe's General Data Protection Regulation so far, according to a TechCrunch report published August 23. Dutch regulators investigated complaints that the company had shut down driver accounts through automated systems without adequate warning or human involvement. The authority concluded that Uber had violated data protection rules by allowing computers to make consequential employment decisions without proper oversight.
This marks the third fine the Dutch regulator has imposed on Uber, following a €290 million penalty over its management of drivers' personal information and a €10 million fine for related violations. The investigation originated from complaints filed by the same group of drivers across all three cases. A former Uber driver in France, Brahim Ben Ali, gathered statements from 170 other drivers after his own account was shut down in 2019, then brought his complaint to the Netherlands, where Uber's European headquarters operates. Ben Ali worked with PersonalData.io, a Swiss nonprofit focused on digital rights, which helped drivers gather information about how deactivation decisions were reached.
Deputy chair Monique Verdier said that Uber had "committed serious infringements." She stated that "a computer should not make decisions on its own that have [such] major consequences." Paul-Olivier Dehaye, founder of PersonalData.io, told TechCrunch that a driver "can complete a thousand journeys with satisfied passengers, but if just one person reports a very serious problem, the consequences can be enormous." Uber contested the finding, with a spokesperson telling Reuters the company "strongly disagree[s] with this decision and disproportionate fine." The company maintains that most driver suspensions are temporary, that no permanent deactivations occur without human review, and that drivers can appeal decisions. Dutch regulators said some drivers were permanently deactivated without human review, which Uber disputes.
The penalty highlights a fundamental tension in how gig economy platforms manage their workforce. Dehaye argued that Uber is free to use humans to punish drivers who scam, but then "has to take responsibility for this decision making (like 'being an employer', not 'being a marketplace')." Uber plans to appeal the decision. Dehaye announced he's launching a new company called StartClaims to support litigation and regulatory action, first targeting Uber and then expanding to other gig economy cases and related areas like adtech. He plans to start a class action suit through which drivers can seek compensation. The outcome of Uber's appeal will clarify whether European regulators can force technology platforms to insert human judgment into automated moderation systems, even when those systems are designed to protect customers from fraud or safety risks. Platforms that rely on algorithmic enforcement to scale operations may need to rethink their governance structures if the fine stands.