Delivery workers gathered outside the Brussels Court of First Instance on Friday morning at 08:45 to mark the start of a legal action against Uber Eats, accusing the platform of unfairly disconnecting couriers without explanation or warning.
The lawsuit was initiated by 16 former Uber Eats workers who claim they were abruptly removed from the platform, preventing them from continuing their deliveries.
The disconnections were reportedly attributed to a “failure to comply with the general terms and conditions,” yet the workers say they were not provided with any further clarification.
The case is supported by several organizations, including the ACV/CSC union, the Egaliberté foundation, the Centre d’information à l’éducation populaire (CIEP-B), and the Human Rights League.
The plaintiffs argue that the process lacks transparency and fairness, leaving them without recourse to contest the decisions or understand the reasons behind their removal.
At the end of November, Uber Eats defended its practices, stating that a courier’s access to the platform is “always subject to a rigorous human review.”
However, delivery drivers assert that once disconnected, they have no means to inquire or communicate about these decisions, which they claim are arbitrary and without due process.
“If they react, the workers receive an email confirming the decision that has already been taken, as a ‘human review,'” said union representatives.
“The NGOs and trade unions deplore the fact that they are never given the opportunity to speak to someone, to find out exactly what they are accused of, or to give their version of the facts.”
Camille Peeters, a member of CIEP-B and the ‘Maison des livreurs’ organization, emphasized the importance of the legal action, stating, “With this legal action, we hope to make Uber Eats apply the law and allow these delivery drivers to start working again.”
Peeters also noted that several hundred delivery drivers have approached the organization in the past two years with complaints of similar arbitrary disconnections.
The plaintiffs’ complaints are supported by several NGOs and unions, who describe the situation as a form of “hyper-surveillance” that borders on the absurd.
“Sometimes a dead battery at the wrong time is enough for the system to suspect fraud and eliminate the worker for good,” they explained.
For the workers involved, the case is about more than just reinstating their access to the platform—it’s about upholding their rights as workers. “Whatever their status, they are workers and have rights, starting with the right to respect,” said the unions.
The delivery drivers are asking Uber Eats to disclose all personal data processed by the company, in order to understand the reasoning behind their disconnections.
They also demand transparency regarding the profiling and automated decisions made by the platform and are calling for a review of the disconnections, ensuring that they are subject to sufficient human intervention.
Peeters concluded by reminding delivery workers not to give up in the face of disconnection. “We can help you, and this court case is proof of that,” he said.
The outcome of the case could have significant implications for gig economy workers and the growing debate around the rights and treatment of platform-based labor.
