Uber says its drivers are self-employed: the app only «connects» them with passengers. If they are employees instead, Uber owes social security contributions, minimum wages and holiday pay – and its business model changes. Courts, authorities and parliaments around the world have been answering this question since 2016. The test is everywhere the same one you met in Chapter 04.05: who controls the work?
Switzerland
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has decided the question three times, each time against Uber: in Geneva, Uber is a transport company and an employer of its drivers under the cantonal taxi law (BGer 2C_34/2021 of 30 May 2022); Uber Eats couriers are employees whom Uber hires out to restaurants (BGE 148 II 426); and for social security, UberX, Black, Van and Green drivers work as employees of Uber B.V., Amsterdam, which must pay contributions in Switzerland (BGE 149 V 57). The criteria: Uber sets the price, assigns the rides, rates the drivers and can deactivate them – that is control, not intermediation. Uber settled with Geneva for CHF 35.4 million in back contributions and compensation (Keystone-SDA, 18 November 2022, in German) and now works there through partner fleets that employ the drivers. In the rest of Switzerland, Uber still calls itself an intermediary; the unions call this undeclared work and demand enforcement (Beobachter, 20 October 2025, in German). Switzerland has no special law on platform work: the Federal Council examined a third status and decided in 2021 to keep the existing distinction between employees and self-employed (Federal Council, 27 October 2021, in German).
European Union
The Court of Justice decided in 2017 that Uber is not an information society service but a transport service, so member states may regulate it like taxis (CJEU, C-434/15, Elite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain). National supreme courts in France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands then qualified drivers and riders as employees. In 2024 the EU drew the conclusion: Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on platform work introduces a legal presumption of employment – when the facts indicate control and direction, the platform must prove that the person is not an employee (Art. 5) – and rules on algorithmic management: transparency, human oversight, and no suspension or dismissal by an algorithm alone (Art. 7 ff.). Member states must transpose the directive by 2 December 2026.
The global trend
The direction is the same almost everywhere: from «self-employed» towards «employee», or at least towards a protected status. The UK has a middle category, the «worker» (minimum wage and paid holidays, but no protection against dismissal); after losing in the Supreme Court (Uber BV v Aslam, 19 February 2021), Uber accepted it for all UK drivers (TechCrunch, 16 March 2021). Only California went the other way: after the legislature had classified drivers as employees (AB 5, 2019), Uber, Lyft and DoorDash spent over USD 205 million on a ballot initiative, and the voters restored self-employment with some benefits (Proposition 22, 2020; upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2024). In June 2026, the ILO adopted Convention No. 193 (s. Chapter 04.03): no fixed status, but every country must determine the status according to the facts – which is exactly what the courts have been doing. Check your own country with your chatbot: employee, self-employed, or a third status?
Law moves markets: Uber’s share price
Uber has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since May 2019. Since then, every systemic decision on driver status has moved its share price on the same day:
| Date | Decision | Uber share price |
|---|---|---|
| 25 Nov 2019 | London (TfL) refuses licence renewal | –3 % |
| 4 Nov 2020 | California voters pass Proposition 22 | +12 % |
| 19 Feb 2021 | UK Supreme Court: drivers are «workers» | –3 % |
| 11 Oct 2022 | US Department of Labor proposes new contractor rule | –11 % |
| 13 Mar 2023 | California court upholds Proposition 22 | +4 % |
| 2022–2023 | Swiss Federal Supreme Court, three decisions | no visible reaction |
Two lessons. First, the market reacts to rules, not to cases: a mere proposal of the US Department of Labor cost Uber more than all European judgments together, because it would change the whole home market at once. Second, a loss in Switzerland costs Uber CHF 35 million – a rounding error for a company with USD 52 billion in revenue (Uber, results 2025).
Disruption and the platform: the legal dividend
Uber is the textbook case of a disruptive start-up: it launched a business model for which no rules existed, grew faster than the law, and is now being fenced in, country by country – the law catching up (in German «Nachregulierung», s. digilaw.ch, Chapter 16.02 Legal hotspots for start-ups, in German). Students of this course told the story best. On holiday in Istanbul, they did not know how to order a local taxi – so they opened the Uber app. Only later did they notice that Uber was more expensive than the Turkish taxis. The cost advantage of self-employed drivers is gone in many places; the law has taken it. What the law cannot take is the platform: the app on more than 200 million phones (Uber, results 2025), the brand everybody knows, the data and the network of drivers. Uber adapted everywhere – partner fleets in Geneva, «workers» in the UK, Proposition 22 in California – and is still the first app people open in a foreign city. That is Uber’s legal dividend from the rule-free years. The lesson for any start-up: regulatory arbitrage ends, the platform stays – so build the platform while the window is open.
Exercise: your country and Uber
Ask your chatbot: «How does the law of [my country] qualify Uber drivers today – employee, self-employed or a third status? Which court or law decided it, and when?» Verify one source. Then look at the table above and explain to your neighbour why the Swiss decisions did not move Uber’s share price, but a US proposal did.