Uber Technologies, Inc. v. City of Seattle
Issue
Whether Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which requires network companies to inform workers in writing of deactivation policies that must be "reasonably related" to "safe and efficient operations," violates the First Amendment by compelling speech or regulating protected editorial activity.
What Happened
Uber and Instacart challenged Seattle's ordinance regulating the deactivation of gig workers' accounts, arguing it compels speech and is unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the preliminary injunction, holding the Ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct (account deactivations) rather than speech, with any speech burden merely incidental. Alternatively, the panel held that even if the disclosure requirements constitute compelled commercial speech, they survive Zauderer review as reasonably related to Seattle's interest in keeping workers informed and employed, purely factual, not addressing controversial issues, and not unduly burdensome. Judge Bennett dissented in part, arguing the deactivation policy requirement does compel speech subject to intermediate scrutiny and that plaintiffs raised serious questions on the merits warranting remand for redetermination of the Winter preliminary injunction factors.
Why It Matters
This decision extends compelled-disclosure doctrine from traditional content platforms to gig economy apps, holding that requirements to communicate deactivation standards constitute regulation of conduct (or at most commercial speech subject to Zauderer) rather than editorial expression. The split reasoning—with the dissent arguing for intermediate scrutiny—reflects ongoing uncertainty about whether platform operational communications receive full First Amendment protection, particularly relevant as states increasingly regulate platform account termination and moderation explanation requirements post-Moody v. NetChoice.