171 VTC drivers, represented by the League of Human Rights (DHL), filed a complaint against Uber on June 17 before the National Commission for Informatics and Freedoms (Cnil), reports The world.
They accuse the American company of having banned them from the application after “sending automatic and strictly identical messages, all established on the same model”, we can read in the complaint. The reasons for this ban remain unclear. Most cite a “violation of one of the principles of the Uber community charter” or “an anomaly”.
In the light of these elements, the applicants consider that the sanctioning process is automated and does not rely on any human intervention. One way of doing things that they consider illegal under the law. It is article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (RGDP) which governs “fully automated decisions”. It is a decision made with regard to a person, through algorithms applied to their personal data, without any human being intervening in the process.
According to this text, in principle, people have the right not to be the subject of a decision based exclusively on automated processing and producing legal effects concerning them or significantly affecting them in a similar way. However, there are exceptions to this principle: when this decision is based on the explicit consent of the data subject, when it is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract or when it is framed by provisions specific legal provisions. Which does not appear to be the case here.
In any case, when an automated decision is taken, the data subject has additional rights. They must be informed and be able to ask someone to re-examine their situation or to obtain an explanation. Here again, the drivers feel aggrieved since they say they have no recourse to contest their ban.
These last months, “we are witnessing chain disconnections“, reacted Jérôme Giusti, the lawyer of the LDH, quoted by The world. In fact, in a survey of 813 VTC drivers, the national inter-union (INV) found that more than half of them had been victims of a permanent or temporary disconnection. Of the 138 drivers who were permanently disconnected, 120 say they have been so without any warning and 123 have not been able to benefit from any recourse to challenge this decision.
For Jérôme Giusti, these bans are the result of a strategy led by the Californian giant. “There was the ordinance on social dialogue and we suspect Uber of wanting to clean up from this perspective.As a reminder, this text of April 21, 2021 requires the holding of national elections of representatives of independent platform workers.
Uber rejects these accusations. He says any disconnection is subject to “manual review” by “a team of specialists”.