Which is ridiculous on it's face, imagine claiming that stopping someone's income until you get around to reviewing it doesn't have a significant effect on someone.
The real issue is if uber comes away from this thinking they can do a rubber stamp review, because the point of the law was clearly to stop unjustifiable decisions automatically being made(protecting both parties), as uber will still be on the hook for unjustified suspensions but redress will need to go through the court making it worse for all involved.
I know what you are referring to but it doesn't. Read carefully again, it's carefully word smithed. The case is between 2018-2022. Uber says they have human review now that doesn't mean they did have human review in that time period.
Comments
They claim they didn't break it.
Which is ridiculous on it's face, imagine claiming that stopping someone's income until you get around to reviewing it doesn't have a significant effect on someone.
The real issue is if uber comes away from this thinking they can do a rubber stamp review, because the point of the law was clearly to stop unjustifiable decisions automatically being made(protecting both parties), as uber will still be on the hook for unjustified suspensions but redress will need to go through the court making it worse for all involved.
Do you have a source for that?
It says so in the article.
I know what you are referring to but it doesn't. Read carefully again, it's carefully word smithed. The case is between 2018-2022. Uber says they have human review now that doesn't mean they did have human review in that time period.