On April 20, 2026, Rideshare Drivers United — which says it represents more than 20,000 drivers in California — filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that Uber is not providing the benefits to California drivers that Proposition 22 requires in order to treat them as independent contractors. The case is Rideshare Drivers United v Uber Technologies Inc., Case Number: CGC26636126.

California has adopted the ABC test to determine if a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. The ABC test presumes a worker is an employee and places the burden on the hiring entity to establish three factors: “(a) that the worker is free from control and direction over performance of the work, both under the contract and in fact; (b) that the work provided is outside the usual course of the business for which the work is performed; and (c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business (hence the ABC standard).

In 2020, a coalition of companies, including Uber, initiated a ballot initiative to overturn the ABC test for drivers and instead declare all “app-based drivers” who met certain conditions to be independent contractors and not employees. Prop 22 was approved by voters in 2020 and established that drivers for app-based transportation services like Uber and Lyft are independent contractors — not employees — under state law. However, it only applies if drivers are provided with certain benefits, including a minimum wage, subsidies for health insurance, and the ability to appeal terminations Bus. & Prof. Code § 7452(c).

The Plaintiff Rideshare Drivers United (“RDU”) is a California nonprofit corporation with a principal place of business in Pasadena, California. It was founded in 2018 and registered as a nonprofit corporation in 2020. RDU’s declared mission is to support “app-based drivers”, including Uber drivers, organizing to improve their working conditions and rights on the job.

The RDU lawsuit alleges that “Uber has failed to comply with Proposition 22 since its enactment in various ways.” And it claims that “Allowing Uber to wield Proposition 22 as a shield against driver misclassification claims, while simultaneously flouting its legal obligations under the law, is fundamentally unjust and unlawful.”

Plaintiffs allege Uber has failed to create an appeals system to give drivers due process when they’re kicked off the app. The measure had included a promise that drivers would have an appeals process. Many deactivated drivers report that they struggle to appeal their cases — they say they are initially sent to sites where they appear to be talking with bots, then eventually reach agents working from a script who appear to be in another country, and rarely reach people who are empowered to truly help them.

Plaintiffs thus allege Uber has not provided any bona fide appeals process for drivers to challenge their terminations (or “deactivations”, as Uber calls them), and “certainly no appeals process that comports with any standards of due process.”

The plaintiffs also allege that Uber deactivates drivers based on grounds not specified in its “Platform Access Agreement,” and that the company does not provide drivers with enough information about their earnings to verify they are receiving 120% of minimum wage.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Uber has violated Prop 22 and “is barred from asserting that its drivers are independent contractors,” which would open the door for drivers to sue Uber for wage law violations. Rideshare Drivers United is seeking legal fees and costs but no monetary damages directly from this suit. However Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan stated she is at some point seeking back pay and other damages for drivers who were unfairly deactivated, as well as their rights under the labor code.

This lawsuit is the latest of many legal challenges against Prop. 22, which CalMatters has found has no state agency assigned to enforce it. The state Supreme Court upheld the gig-work law in 2024. Separately, Uber is also facing a lawsuit by the state Justice Department and the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego over thousands of wage-theft claims that predate Prop. 22, with a trial-clock deadline set for December 2027.