Rb. Amsterdam - C/13/696010 / HA ZA 21-81

The District Court of Amsterdam issued a default judgment ordering Uber to reinstate 6 drivers that had been dismissed solely based on automated processing. The Court also held that Uber must pay a penalty of €5,000 for every day that it does not comply with the order as well as €100,474 in damages.

Rb. Amsterdam - C/13/696010 / HA ZA 21-81
Court:	Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction:	Netherlands
Relevant Law:	Article 22 GDPR
Decided:	24.02.2021
Published:	14.04.2021
Parties:	Uber B.V.
National Case Number/Name:	C/13/696010 / HA ZA 21-81
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:1415
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	de Rechtspraak (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

English Summary

Facts

Five drivers (5 from the UK, and 1 Dutch), argued they were wrongfully accused of fraudulant activity

District Court of Amsterdam - where Uber's European headquarters are located.

One of the drivers. was sent a message informing him that he was being ousted from the app because of "security concerns related to account sharing". Provided no evidence. The decision is final.

Please see 'Comment' section regarding X, not derived from the default judgment itself.

Dispute

In progress.

Holding

and a penalty of €5,000 for each day that it had failed to comply with the order, which was made in February, up to a maximum of €50,000

Comment

https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/post/dutch-uk-courts-order-uber-to-reinstate-robo-fired-drivers It says here it was after Uber failed to contest the claim.

Say how Uber have appealed it.

'The first time that a court has ordered the overturning of an automated decision to dismiss workers from employment.' Also the first of its kind brought under Article 22 of the GDPR. https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/post/dutch-uk-courts-order-uber-to-reinstate-robo-fired-drivers

[same source] separately. on Monday, 'the City of London Magistrates Court has ordered Transport for London to reinstate the license of one of the drivers which was revoked after Uber routinely notified the transport regulator of the dismissal.'

Link to the other case here!!

The Court found that the procedure does not constitute automated decision making under Article 22 GDPR

The Court found that Uber's contract termination procedure does not constitute automated decision making under Article 22 GDPR. In view of this explanation from Uber, the court assumed that the decision to temporarily block access to the Driver app after a fraud signal was taken automatically, without human intervention. However, this temporary blocking had no long-term or permanent effect, so that the automated decision had no legal consequences or significantly affected the driver.

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.

                                
                            
        



    Authority
    Court of Amsterdam
    Date of judgment
    24-02-2021

    Date of publication
    
14-04-2021

    Case number
    
C / 13/696010 / HA ZA 21-81

    
    Jurisdictions
    
Civil rights
    
    Special characteristics
    
First instance - single
Miter
    
    Content indication
    
Judgment in absentia.

    Locations
    
Rechtspraak.nl
    
        
        
            Enriched pronunciation
        





    
        Share pronunciation
        
    
    
        Print
        Save as PDF
        Copy link

    


        
            Statement
        
        
  
    
      
        
          
        
      
      
        
          
        
      verdict
    COURT OF AMSTERDAM
    
    
      Private Law Department
     
    
    
    
    
      case number / cause list number: C / 13/696010 / HA ZA 21-81
     
    
    
      
        Judgment of February 24, 2021
      
     
    
    
      in the case of
     
    
  
  
    
      1 [claimant 1],
    residing in [residence 1] (United Kingdom),
    2. [claimant 2],
    residing in [residence 1] (United Kingdom),
    3. [claimant 3],
    residing in [residence 1] (United Kingdom),
    4. [claimant 4],
    residing in [residence 1] (United Kingdom),
    5. [claimant 5],
    residing in [residence 2],
    6. [claimant 6],
    
      residing in [residence 3] (United Kingdom),
      plaintiffs,
      lawyer mr. A.H. Ekker in Amsterdam,
     
    
    
      against
     
    
    
      the private company with limited liability
      
        UBER B.V.,
      Based in Amsterdam,
      defendant,
      not published.
     
    
    
  
  
    
      1 The procedure
    
      1.1.
      The course of the procedure is evidenced by:
      
        -
          the summons, with exhibits,
        
        -
          the default granted against the defendant.
        
      
      
    
    
      1.2.
      Finally, verdict has been determined.
      
    
  
  
    
      2 The assessment
    
      2.1.
      The claimed penalty will be limited as follows.
      
    
    
      2.2.
      The claim does not otherwise appear to the court to be unlawful or unfounded and will be awarded as follows.
      
    
    
      2.3.
      As the unsuccessful party, the defendant will be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. The costs on the part of the claimants are estimated at:
      - summons € 100.89
      - court fee 1,666.00
      - lawyer salary 1,770.00 (1.0 point × rate € 1,770.00)
      Total € 3,536.89
      
    
  
  
    
      3 The decision
    The court
    
    
      3.1.
      reserves the right that the defendant's decisions regarding the alleged violation of defendant's terms and conditions and / or the alleged fraudulent acts of plaintiffs and / or the termination of the agreement between defendant and plaintiffs and / or deactivation of Uber Driver accounts of claimants can be regarded as decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which have legal consequences for claimants or which otherwise significantly affect them, within the meaning of Article 22 (1) GDPR,
      
    
    
      3.2.
      destroys defendant's automated decisions regarding the alleged violation of defendant's terms and conditions and / or plaintiffs' alleged fraudulent acts and / or termination of defendant's / plaintiffs' agreement and / or deactivation of plaintiffs' Uber Driver accounts,
      
    
    
      3.3.
      orders defendant to undo the deactivation of claimants' Uber Driver account within one week of serving this judgment,
      
    
    
      3.4.
      orders the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a penalty of € 5,000.00 for each day or part thereof that they fail to comply with in 3.3. pronounced main conviction, up to a maximum of € 50,000.00 has been reached,
      
    
    
      3.5.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 19,012.00 (nineteen thousand and twelve euros) to the plaintiff under 1 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.6.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 15,968.00 (fifteen thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight euros) to the plaintiff sub 2 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.7.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 16,012.00 (sixteen thousand and twelve euros) to the plaintiff sub 3 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
    
    
      3.8.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 19,518.00 (nineteen thousand five hundred eighteen euros) to the plaintiff sub 4 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.9.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 8,206.00 (eight thousand two hundred and six euros) to the plaintiff sub 5 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.10.
      orders the defendant to pay an amount of € 20,258.00 (twenty thousand two hundred and fifty-eight euros) to the plaintiff sub 6 within fourteen days after this judgment has been served, plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.11.
      orders the defendant to pay the plaintiffs an amount of € 1,500.00 (fifteen hundred euros), plus the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from December 30, 2020 until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.12.
      orders the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated to date on the part of the plaintiffs at € 3,536.89, to be increased by the statutory interest as referred to in art. 6: 119 BW on this amount from the fourteenth day after the notification of this judgment until the day of full payment,
      
    
    
      3.13.
      declares this judgment with regard to the provisions under 3.2. to 3.12. executable from stock,
      
    
    
      3.14.
      rejects the more advanced or otherwise advanced.
      
      
        This judgment was rendered by mr. L. Voetelink and pronounced in public on February 24, 2021.1
      
    
  
  
1
    type: AAK
    coll: