The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ordered Uber to reactivate another driver, finding his deactivation was both inconsistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and fundamentally unfair.

For gig workers, this case confirms that a digital platform won’t be able to deactivate workers and strip them of their livelihood, without a sound evidentiary basis for doing so.

The Case: Five Complaints vs One Driver

Uber’s case for deactivation relied on five rider complaints spanning December 2022 to May 2025. However, the Commission found a staggering lack of transparency in how these were handled. Notably, the driver was only shown the specifics of these complaints for the first time during the FWC proceedings and his unchallenged evidence was that riders will often make false complaints in order to secure a refund of their fare.

Why Uber’s Evidence Failed

A critical aspect of the case, was the ‘low probative value’ of the evidence provided by Uber’s witness. Specifically, the FWC noted that Uber’s sole witness:

• was not involved in receiving or investigating the original complaints;
• was not involved in the deactivation process;
• had not spoken to the ‘human representatives’ who handled the complaints when they were first received; and
• had failed to provide the FWC with the documentation relied on in making the decision to deactivate.

In contrast, Commissioner Lim found the driver to be a ‘credible and open witness’ whose first-hand testimony was not materially challenged.

The “Plainly Ludicrous” Submission

Uber argued that a message sent to Mr. Warraich on 24 May 2025 constituted a valid “deactivation warning” under the Code. Commissioner Lim described this submission as ‘plainly ludicrous’ in circumstances where it did not meet the requirements of a valid warning under Section 8 of the Code, which requires that the platform must:

1. must specifically warn the worker they risk deactivation (not just suspension).
2. must provide sufficient particulars of the reason for the warning (ie dates, times, and specifics of any incident) so the worker can actually respond to the allegations; and
3. inform the worker of their right to seek support or representation.

Uber’s attempt to withhold details under the guise of “privacy” was rejected. The FWC noted that the Code does not give platforms carte blanche to withhold identifying information as a matter of standard practice. The FWC also noted there was no evidence of Uber investigating the complaints, aside from checking whether three of the five complainants had any history of making complaints in bad faith (they did not).

The FWC found that Uber failed to provide a valid reason for deactivation. Without a proper investigation or an informed opportunity for the driver to respond, the deactivation was inconsistent with the Code and unfair.

The Result

The FWC found that Uber had failed to comply with the code and ordered the immediate reactivation of the driver’s access to the Uber Driver Platform, with orders regarding lost pay to be decided at a later point.

Are you concerned about a deactivation notice or looking to ensure your platform’s policies are Code-compliant? Contact our expert employment law team today.