Uber drivers in the UK, the Netherlands, and other countries have filed a landmark compensation claim in Amsterdam, alleging the company's AI-powered pay-setting algorithm breaches data protection laws and systematically pushes down their earnings. The case, which could run into billions of dollars, is the first collective legal action of its kind against a major platform's use of automated decision-making in worker pay, according to the European Trade Union Confederation.
The claim, filed at Amsterdam's district court where Uber's European headquarters is based, targets what drivers describe as an opaque "black box" algorithm that sets personalised pay rates for each ride. The lawsuit alleges Uber unlawfully used automated decision-making, including profiling, to dynamically set pay and allocate work, and unlawfully used driver data to train its AI models. It seeks damages for affected drivers and an injunction to halt practices it claims violate GDPR.
How the algorithm works, according to drivers
Drivers say the system feeds on their personal data to calculate the minimum they are willing to accept for a trip. Mohammed Shirwa, a 41-year-old Uber driver in Rotterdam, described the experience as constant surveillance. "It is like someone watching you all the time and knowing about your weakness - the boss is the algorithm," he said. "All the time the algorithm is learning about you and what you are willing to accept. So the prices go low but you are stuck. It knows you need the job."
Kola Oba, a 48-year-old driver in London, said the algorithm offered him £23 for a job while another driver was offered £27 for the same trip. He suspected the AI had learned he would accept lower fares based on his history. "It's scary - they have all my information and they are using it against my own wellbeing," Oba said. "It defines how much I earn, how long I have to work, my time with my family, my resting time." Uber has previously attributed such discrepancies to other system features including GPS, surge pricing, promotions, and testing.
Uber's response and regulatory context
Uber said it does not adjust trip prices based on an individual driver's behaviour and that a history of accepting or rejecting trips is not used to personalise pay offers. "The Uber app uses real-time information about the trip such as journey, duration and destination to calculate fares," a company spokesperson said. "Drivers see their earnings and where a trip is going before they decide whether to accept it."
The case arrives one month after the Dutch data protection authority fined Uber €825 million for deactivating driver accounts through automated systems without adequate notice. Uber said it would appeal that decision. The company is also planning to roll out driverless cars in European cities from London to Zagreb, initially with human supervision.
Legal arguments and the "synthetic manager"
The legal action is led by the Worker Info Exchange, a campaign group whose founder, James Farrar, previously secured a UK Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers should have worker rights. Farrar said the company's use of technology to monitor and influence drivers was "an affront to their dignity as workers and as human beings."
Anton Ekker, the Dutch lawyer leading the case, framed the claim around the limits of automated systems. "A computer algorithm should not independently make decisions that strip individuals of their livelihood," he said. "Like so many other online platforms, it should be held accountable for the large-scale exploitation of vulnerabilities of European citizens."
The claim relates to about 241,000 drivers across the EU and the UK. It alleges that Uber has operated dynamic pay-setting in the UK since 2023, reducing annual driver incomes by roughly £5,000, and introduced the system in the Netherlands this year. A 2025 study by University of Oxford academics, which Uber said relied on incomplete and selective data, found substantial cuts in driver earnings after the dynamic algorithm was introduced.
AI models increasingly function as what researchers call a "synthetic manager," using data on staff behaviour and business needs to assign work. The legal challenge tests whether GDPR protections on automated decision-making apply to this kind of algorithmic management-a question with implications across the gig economy and beyond. For legal professionals tracking the intersection of data protection and employment law, the case could set a precedent for how courts treat AI for Legal accountability in workplace systems.
Why this matters for legal professionals
This case puts GDPR's Article 22-the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions with legal or significant effects-directly in play against a major platform's core business model. The outcome will shape how far companies can go in using AI to set worker pay, and whether drivers can claim compensation for algorithmic wage suppression. For solicitors, paralegals, and data protection officers, the Amsterdam proceedings offer a live test of cross-border enforcement, collective redress mechanisms, and the evidentiary challenges of proving harm from an opaque algorithm.
Your membership also unlocks:
