On the 15th of January, 2021, in the case “Aziz Al Hakmaoui c/ SARL Uber B.V, SASU Uber France”, the Lyon Appeal Court

On the 21st of June, 2022, in the case “Asim Nawaz v. Rasier Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Uber B.V.”, the Fair Work Commission

On the 27th of April, 2023, the Valparaíso Labour Court dismissed the claim filed by Rodrigo Cabrera, Olmos and another 49 drivers against Hinter Chile SpA, Uber Portier Chile SpA, Uber Chile SpA

On the 8th of March, 2019, in the case “Aziz Al Hakmaoui c/ SARL Uber B.V, SASU Uber France”, the Lyon Employment Court was declared

On the 28th of October, 2022, in the case brought by Uber México Technology & Software, Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable against the Government of Puebla State, the district judge declared unconstitutional

On the 28th of September, 2017, in the complaint brought by Hugo Humberto Ospina Agudelo - President of the Association of Taxi Owners and Drivers against Uber Colombia S.A.S., before

On the 11th of April, 2018, in the case “Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc.”, the District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that Uber drivers (in this specific case, those offering an Uber Black service) are

On the 21st of April, 2020, in the case “Amita Gupta v. Portier Pacific Pty Ltd; Uber Australia Pty Ltd t/a Uber Eats”, (C2019/5651), Australia’s Fair Work Commission ruled that no employment relationship

On the 14th of July, 2015, in the case “Ronald Andrés Thomson Cuñado v. Uber Chile SPA”, the Labour Court of Santiago

On the 1st of August, 2012, in the case “Rashid Alatraqchi, vs. Uber Technologies, Inc. a Delaware corporation”, (state case number: 11-42020 CT), the California Labour Commission

On the 5th of April, 2018, in the case “Mercedes Ramos de Avilés vs. Uber CT Corporation System”, (Caso: 18-26-14056), the State Insurance Fund Corporation determined that

In the case “Abdul Mohammed Complaint, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Respondent”, (Case No. 15-E-77), a Commission decided

On the 28th of June, 2018, in the case “Judgment on the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction Ruling at first instance and in contested proceedings”, (File No. F 17/04674), the Court

In 2016, in the case “Oze Igiehon vs Rasier Operations BV”, the Court ruled against the “wrongful dismissal” claim and affirmed that the relationship between parties - driver and Uber - was

On the 23rd of November, 2016, in the case “UBER Technologies, Inc. et al. vs Y.E”, (11-42020CT), the Californian Court affirmed that an employment relationship does not

In the case “Uber B.V. y otros c/ Aslam y otros”, the UK’s Supreme Court ruled that individuals that have contracts with Uber

On the 22nd of March, 2019, in the case “Mauricio de Souza Dinucci vs. Uber do Brasil”, (expte. N° 0101036-14.2017.5.01.00421), the Court determined

On the 23rd of May, 2017, in the case “Rodrido Leonardo Silva Ferreira vs. Uber do Brasil Tecnología Ltda”, (Proceso N° 0011359-34.2016.5.03.0112), the Court

On the 21st of March, 2019, in the case “Fabio Gil Da Silva vs. Uber do Brasil” (expte. N° 0010148-42.2019.5.03.0181), the Court found that the Uber app is limited to connecting drivers with users

On the 6th of March, 2019, in the case “Eutalio Barcelos Camargo vs. Uber do Brasil”, (expte. N° 0010159-65.2019.5.03.0183), the Court held that the drivers; ability to choose