Skip to content
Enforcement · AP (The Netherlands) ·Uber B.V and Uber Technologies Inc. EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

AP (The Netherlands) - Uber B.V and Uber Technologies Inc.

Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc., the controllers, used software between 2018 and 2022 to monitor drivers’ behaviour and customer ratings.

Status Not cited by any decision here yet

€824,990,000 Fine
Netherlands
Art. 22 GDPR

Holding

The DPA held that the controllers violated Article 22 GDPR by subjecting drivers to decisions based solely on automated processing which significantly affected them. The account deactivations were made automatically, without meaningful human involvement, and prevented affected drivers from working through Uber and earning income via the platform. The DPA also found that the controllers had not sufficiently informed drivers about the automated decision-making. The press release does not specify the exact GDPR transparency provision infringed. The DPA imposed a fine of €824,99 m. The infringing practices had already ended by the time of the decision. The controller announced that it would challenge the fine.

From GDPRhub’s case note — a summary of the decision, not its own words. Read it in the text ↓

Summary

Where the system detected suspected fraud or low customer ratings, drivers’ accounts could be automatically temporarily or permanently deactivated without human assessment. During the deactivation, affected drivers could no longer generate income through Uber. The proceedings followed complaints by 171 French drivers represented by the Ligue des droits de l’Homme. Since the controllers’ main European establishment was in the Netherlands, the Dutch DPA investigated the matter as lead supervisory authority in cooperation with the French DPA and other concerned authorities.

Full text 3 findings

Machine translation of the decision, via GDPRhub — not the official text. Read the original

Paragraphs carrying a topic or an applied provision show those connections inline

Uber Fined Nearly

§

825 Million Euros for Automated Blocking of Drivers August 21, 2026 Topics: Algorithms Explained Working in Transportation The Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) has imposed a fine of 824,990,000 euros on Uber. The reason for this is that the AP determined that Uber made fully automated decisions regarding drivers. In cases of suspected fraud or low customer ratings, drivers’ accounts were automatically deactivated temporarily or—in cases of persistently low customer ratings—permanently. As a result, their income through Uber was lost during the deactivation period. According to the AP, Uber thereby violated the prohibition on fully automated decision-making under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The AP also found that Uber did not adequately inform drivers about the automated decision-making process. Uber has since ceased these violations. Human Review Was Lacking Uber used software to monitor drivers’ driving behavior and track customer ratings.

§

If the software detected suspected fraud or if customer ratings were too low, the accounts of the drivers involved were automatically deactivated. No human assessment was involved in this process. This occurred between 2018 and 2022. Monique Verdier, vice chair of the AP: “Uber committed serious violations. Drivers were suspended without warning. As a result, they suddenly lost their income from Uber. That is prohibited. A computer should not be allowed to make independent decisions that have major consequences for you. A human should have reviewed this first.” Complaints from drivers The AP launched this investigation into Uber after 171 French drivers filed a complaint with the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), a French human rights advocacy organization. LDH subsequently filed a complaint on behalf of the drivers with the French data protection authority. The AP then conducted an investigation because Uber’s European headquarters are located in the Netherlands.

§

This procedure (the “one-stop shop” mechanism) is provided for in the GDPR. During the investigation, the AP did work closely with the French data protection authority. The AP also coordinated the fine decision with other European data protection authorities. Amount of the Fine Imposed on Uber All European data protection authorities calculate the amount of fines for companies in the same way. These fines amount to a maximum of 4% of a company’s global annual revenue. In 2025, Uber had global revenue of approximately 44.5 billion euros. Uber has announced that it will appeal the fine. Previous fines against Uber This is the fourth fine the AP has imposed on Uber. In 2018, the AP fined Uber 600,000 euros; in 2023, it imposed a fine of 10 million euros; and in 2024, a fine of 290 million euros. Uber is contesting the last two fines; the related proceedings are still ongoing.

How it connects

3 of 3 paragraphs apply legislation or carry a topic — see them in the full text ↓
C-203/22 CK v Magistrat der Stadt Wien In Case C-203/22, the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 15(1)(h) of the GDPR in response to a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien… CJEU ·First Chamber Feb 27, 2025 Profiling Automated Decision-Making Personal Data
C-634/21 OQ v Land Hessen In Case C-634/21, the CJEU addressed a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden concerning OQ's challenge against Land Hessen's refusal to order SCHUFA Holding AG… CJEU ·First Chamber Dec 7, 2023 Profiling Automated Decision-Making Marketing
W256 2227693-1 Austrian FAC: DPA rightly found loyalty program consent for profiling invalid under GDPR On 05.09.2019, the Austrian DPA (DSB) notified the controller of a customer loyalty program that they were initiating an ex officio investigation. The controller responded by… Federal Administrative Court Sep 28, 2023 Marketing Automated Decision-Making Profiling
C-422/24 Case C-422/24 - AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik. A new page has been created with the following information: "" CJEU Jan 7, 2026 Personal Data Fairness & Transparency Controllers
HvJ EU 9 januari 2025, C‑394/23 (Mousse) Artikelen: 5(1)(c), 6(1), en 21 AVG Onderwerp : Beginsel van minimale gegevensverwerking Gek genoeg verwijst het HvJ EU zelf niet naar HvJ EU 1 augustus 2022, C‑184/20… HvJ EU 9 januari 2025, C‑394/23 (Mousse). ·CJEU Jan 9, 2025 IP Address Retention Period Material scope (GDPR)