In answer to the second question, the Supreme Court found Uber exercised high levels of control over drivers, characteristic of an employment relationship. For example, the app tracked drivers’ movements, sanctioning them for rejecting rides or taking inefficient routes, meaning there could be no sub-contracting allowed, or competition created by drivers “multi-apping.” It was held to be sufficient that Uber’s “authority” and “control” over drivers occurred by technological means (as this was a feature of modern working conditions). The Court considered digital services which connected sellers and buyers of goods needed to be analysed on a service-by-service basis to determine whether they created employment relationships. Other matters, such as the driver’s inability to benefit from consumer loyalty (therefore depriving them of goodwill), and control over performance were also considered.
