In France, Uber Drivers are Employees. What does it Mean for Tech?

The French Court of Cassation just published a ruling, confirming that Uber employees are in fact not contractors, but employees of Uber. It might sound scary if you know how serious French work and workers’ rights regulations are.

Indeed, law and technology are not meant for one another, and the very title of this post might sound to you as a setback for the whole Tech ecosystem in France. Some may see it as the end of the “platform” model as we know it. We see it differently.

First, this ruling is actually helpful. By stating that Uber is an employer and not merely a platform, it confirms that “platforms” exist under law — it just states that Uber is not one of them. It also helps define what can be considered a platform under the French law — thus reducing the legal uncertainty that burdens the operations of Tech startups operating under the “platform” model.

The main arguments for the court’s decision were based on the following criteria as to whether an actor may be considered an employer or not:

• the employer’s unilateral power to give orders and instructions or oversee performance
• the driver’s proprietary client base (or lack thereof)
• the driver’s power to set fares and choose routes (or lack thereof)

It therefore comes down to ensuring that people providing services through the platform have a certain degree of freedom in setting the terms of the transactions. In addition, quality control and sanctions are deemed a potential source of “subordination”.

If you are a start-up founder running a platform business, we strongly recommend you to get past the France-bashing wave of heated reactions and actually read the ruling in order to understand how to make the operations and legal arrangements of your business bullet-proof.

However, we do regret to see that the ruling is motivated by arguments that seem to show a rather disappointing level of understanding of technology.

It is said that the service provided by the drivers exists only thanks to Uber. Fundamentally, technology inevitably shapes new social and economic relations. A successful technology invention will inevitably create new behaviors that exist only as a consequence of it. By advancing this argument the court seems to ignore this reality. The job of Tech founders is not to make existing businesses run on computers, but to shape completely new businesses. This reality should never be a factor in appreciation of the level of subordination/freedom of individuals doing work on the platform.

As we already stated in the op-ed piece in Le Figaro, our policy-makers will have to up their game if they want to create a more relevant environment for Tech to flourish with respect to society and human rights.