“Seattle seeks to impose an unconstitutional regime of compelled speech, forced association, indecipherable government mandate, sweeping disclosure demand, and impairment of contract rights on companies like Uber,” the company wrote in its complaint. Uber further asserts that the city’s demands would significantly alter its ability to make decisions based on its own operational requirements and safety protocols, undermining its privacy policies and ability to protect sensitive business information.
At the heart of Uber’s legal challenge is the requirement that the company disclose confidential business information and adopt a deactivation policy that aligns with Seattle’s approach, even if it goes against the company’s operational preferences. Uber believes that such a policy would undermine its reputation and undermine its focus on maintaining safety, quality, and privacy.
Uber’s complaint also highlights that while it shares Seattle’s goal of keeping couriers active on platforms like Uber, it disagrees with the specific balance the city has chosen to strike. The company asserts that ensuring consumers receive reliable and safe deliveries is a higher priority than allowing couriers with consistently poor ratings to remain on the platform. Uber also contends that couriers should not be allowed to refuse delivery to certain neighborhoods based on the characteristics of the people or businesses there.
