Overview of the Uber Eats Deregulation Case and Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court reopened the so‑called employment regulation case, known as the ERE file, involving a secret move by Uber Food. In August 2021, the company abruptly disconnected its fleet of couriers, about 4,000 self‑employed riders, as the so‑called Rider Law was about to be enacted. The unions CCOO and UGT lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office, arguing that the company failed to honor an actual employee relationship with the riders and then terminated them to sidestep potential severance obligations. Trial judges initially rejected the unions’ argument, claiming the workers were not their clients. The Supreme Court stepped in with a corrective decision, stating that the magistrates had left the workers defenseless and instructed the case to proceed again, according to the sentences it reviewed. The report is attributed to El Periódico de Catalunya, a newspaper within the same Prensa Ibérica group.
The controversial law, often referred to as the “equestrian law,” came into effect on August 12, 2021. It established a clear requirement that digital distribution platforms hire their deliverers as employees. The aim was to regulate an industry long marked by worker deregulation and widespread use of independent contracting that obscured real employment status, a stance supported by the Labor Inspectorate and the courts, including the Supreme Court. After the law was passed and the subsequent transition period, most companies adjusted their operating models. Only Glovo, among the major players, resisted by maintaining a largely freelancer‑based structure and faced investigations from the Inspectorate.
Compliance with the new regulation varied across companies. Some argued that the new terms would prevent continuous market competition and ultimately withdraw from the Spanish market. To prepare for the change, one company recruited a large fleet of around 3,800 riders, as required by Social Security, then released them with severance compensation. Uber Eats chose a different path: it remained in the market but shifted to a subcontracted fleet model. On August 12, it unilaterally disconnected all riders operating on its platforms who were classified as self‑employed.
The unions saw this as a violation of their legal obligations and a breach of earlier rules, describing the action as a disallowed reset. The disconnection effectively erased existing arrangements and replaced them with a subcontractor fleet. Consequently, a class‑action lawsuit was filed in the National Court. The court judged that the operations fled from proper implementation within the home delivery apps sector and among Uber Eats employees, ultimately undermining the unions’ argument about an illegal mass layoff.
Supreme Court Reaches a Ruling on the Case
The case was appealed, and the Supreme Court issued a decisive ruling that clarified the unions’ standing in this industry. The court emphasized that the unions representing workers in the sector have the legitimacy to challenge business decisions that undermine workers’ rights, even when those decisions are complex and cover broad groups of service providers. This stance was articulated as the core principle guiding the court’s decision on the magistrates’ initial judgment.
The Supreme Court criticized the National Court for dismissing the unions’ legitimating arguments and noted that the statute of limitations for such lawsuits against the company could be a relevant factor. The court then ordered the case to be reopened, with parties summoned, to determine whether Uber Eats engaged in any covert actions that affected the workers’ status or the legality of the business decision. This decision underscores the ongoing scrutiny of how platform‑driven work arrangements are regulated and contested in Spain.