Denver, CO: Late Friday night, Uber filed a lawsuit in federal court in Denver attempting to block the implementation of Colorado’s Transportation Network Company (TNC) and Delivery Network Company (DNC) Acts. These laws, set to take effect on February 1st, among other things, require basic transparency from companies like Uber, including disclosures to riders about how much of their payments go to drivers versus Uber’s profits and clear earnings breakdowns for drivers.
The TNC and DNC Acts were designed to address long-standing issues of fairness and transparency in the gig economy. By requiring Uber to disclose how much of a rider’s fare goes to the driver versus what the company keeps, as well as providing drivers with clear earnings data, the laws would shed light on practices that many suspect are unfairly skewed against drivers and consumers.
The legislation was the result of months of extensive negotiations, during which Uber and other companies ultimately remained neutral. Uber’s last-minute legal maneuvering to block these laws represents a cynical attempt to evade accountability and continue concealing its exploitative practices and price gouging behind hidden algorithms.
The lawsuit claims that the legislation violates Uber’s First Amendment rights because it dictates what information Uber must share with riders and drivers. Legal experts argue that Uber is pushing a radical legal argument designed to gut consumer and worker protections.
Representative Javier Mabrey said: “Time and time again we see some of the wealthiest companies in the world fight tooth and nail with millions of dollars to undermine basic worker and consumer protections. These companies would rather spend endless cash on needless litigation than adopt basic protections for their workers. It’s sad.”
Representative Stephanie Vigil said: “We are living in an age of runaway corporate power and soaring economic inequality. The bills we passed last year were a step in the right direction, seeking to hold companies like Uber responsible for how they do business in Colorado. Drivers have been finding it harder to make money on increasingly gamified mobile apps, and consumers are paying more and more without understanding where their money is going. This lawsuit shows the people of this state what many drivers already know: information is power, and this company will stop at nothing to keep you in the dark.”
Executive Director Dennis Dougherty from the Colorado AFL-CIO said: “This lawsuit is a stark reminder of how powerful corporations operate. Time and time again, working people are told we have to compromise with big business to achieve meaningful legislation, only for companies like Uber to later run to the courts to escape accountability. Uber pretended to compromise, but now they’re whining to courts about laws they said they could live with. This is just one more example of corporations playing by their own rules.”
Kareem Sawadogo from the Colorado Independent Drivers Union said: “Uber’s actions show they’re more interested in hiding their price gouging than in supporting transparency or treating drivers fairly. This lawsuit is about nothing more than Uber keeping its predatory practices in the dark.”
Longtime Denver resident Sam Johnson and a frequent Uber rider said: “As a customer, I want to know where my money is going. Learning that Uber is suing because it says it has a constitutional right to keep me in the dark is infuriating. It feels like they’re saying I don’t deserve to know how much of my fare supports local drivers, many of whom are working multiple jobs to make ends meet. Transparency is not just fair—it’s necessary for me to make informed choices about how I spend my money.”
David Seligman, attorney and Executive Director of Towards Justice said: “Uber is pursuing a radical legal argument based on the false premise that it has a First Amendment right to hide its price gouging. That’s not how the First Amendment works. This is a shameful attempt to pursue a radical legal theory designed to gut consumer and worker protection laws.”
###