\n<\/p>\n
The Dutch Data Protection Authority is fining Uber \u20ac825 million (around $966 million) \u2014 the second largest penalty issued so far under Europe\u2019s General Data Protection Regulation, according to Reuters<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Dutch regulator was investigating complaints that Uber had deactivated driver accounts through an automated process without sufficient warning or human oversight. In a statement, deputy chair Monique Verdier said that the company had \u201ccommitted serious infringements.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cA computer should not make decisions on its own that have [such] major consequences,\u201d Verdier said.<\/p>\n Uber, however, argued that most driver suspensions are brief, that no permanent deactivations take place without human review, and that drivers have the ability to appeal. (Dutch regulators said some drivers were permanently deactivated without human review, which Uber disputes.) The company said it will appeal the decision.<\/p>\n \u201cWe strongly disagree with this decision \u200band disproportionate fine,\u201d an Uber spokesperson told Reuters. TechCrunch has reached out to the company for additional comment.<\/p>\n Brahim Ben Ali, a former Uber driver in France, told the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant<\/a> that after his account was deactivated in 2019, he collected testimonies from 171 other Uber drivers and eventually brought his complaint to the Netherlands, where Uber\u2019s European headquarters are located.<\/p>\n Ben Ali was assisted in this effort by a Swiss nonprofit focused on digital rights called PersonalData.io<\/a>, which helped the drivers collect data about how the deactivation decisions were made. Founder Paul-Olivier Dehaye said a driver \u201ccan complete a thousand journeys with satisfied passengers, but if just one person reports a very serious problem, the consequences can be enormous.\u201d<\/p>\n Dehaye told me that this is the third fine that the Dutch regulator has levied on Uber, following a \u20ac290 million fine over its handling of drivers\u2019 personal data<\/a> and a \u20ac10 million fine stemming from related issues<\/a>. He also said he plans to start a class action suit through which drivers can seek compensation.<\/p>\n In fact, Dehaye said these fines all originate with complaints made by the same group of drivers. And he\u2019s starting a new company called StartClaims to support the litigation and other regulatory action \u2014 first against Uber and then eventually expanding to other gig economy cases, as well as related areas like adtech.<\/p>\n While discussing the case with Dehaye (who I\u2019ve known casually since college), I brought up a blog post by Daring Fireball\u2019s John Gruber<\/a>, in which Gruber worried that this fine makes it \u201cunlawful in the EU for Uber to monitor its drivers for pulling scams against customers, or just never picking riders up, leaving them stranded.\u201d<\/p>\n Gruber also took issue with Verdier\u2019s statement, arguing, \u201cSaying that \u2018a computer\u2019 made these decisions is like saying that when a company suspends or fires a habitually late employee, that \u2018the time clock\u2019 made the decision. Managers at the company set the policies, and the devices measure employee compliance.\u201d<\/p>\n Dehaye countered that Gruber \u201cmisses the point.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUber is free to use humans to punish drivers who scam, but then [it] has to take responsibility for this decision making (like \u2018being an employer\u2019, not \u2018being a marketplace\u2019),\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\n