s.536LU - Application for an unfair deactivation remedy

Application for an unfair deactivation remedy - applicant was protected from unfair deactivation - low customer satisfaction rating - compliance with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code - application dismissed.

• [1] Ms Devi has made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair deactivation remedy pursuant to s 536LU of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Portier Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Uber Eats is the respondent to the application.

• [2] On 14 October 2025, I held a hearing, by video conference, in relation to whether Ms Devi was unfairly deactivated. Ms Devi gave evidence in support of her case. Ms Emilee Fairlie, Senior Manager, Industrial Relations at Uber Australia Pty Ltd, gave evidence in support of Uber's case.

• [3] There is no dispute between the parties, and I am satisfied on the basis of evidence before the Commission, that:

(a) Ms Devi's unfair deactivation application was made within the period required by s 536LU(3) of the Act; and

(b) Ms Devi was protected from unfair deactivation at the time she was deactivated by Uber.

• [4] The third initial matter about which I must be satisfied before considering the merits of the application is whether Ms Devi's deactivation was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code (s 536LW(c) of the Act). A person's deactivation will be consistent with the Code if, at the time of the deactivation, the digital labour platform operator complied with the Code in relation to the deactivation (s 536LJ(3) of the Act).

Chapter 3A of the Act deals with minimum standards for certain workers (called regulated workers).

Regulated workers include employee-like workers who perform work through or by means of a digital labour platform.

Section 536LJ of the Act provides that the Minister must make a code to be known as the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. This instrument is the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code.

An employee-like worker may be found to be unfairly deactivated from a digital labour platform if the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that the deactivation is not consistent with this Code (see paragraph 536LF(c) of the Act).

Note: A number of expressions used in this instrument are defined in the Act, including the following:

Act means the Fair Work Act 2009.

code process means the process, set out in Part 2, for deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform.

deactivation warning: see subsection 8(1).

final deactivation notice: see subsection 14(5).

(b) a police force or a police service of a State or Territory; or

(c) any other authority or person responsible for the enforcement of the laws of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

preliminary deactivation notice: see subsection 11(1).

6 References to modification of access to digital labour platform

A reference in this instrument to the modification of an employee-like worker's access to a digital labour platform means a modification of access having the result that the worker is deactivated from the platform within the meaning of section 536LG of the Act.

Part 2 - Code process for deactivation

7 When code process for deactivation must be followed

(1) To be taken to comply with this instrument, a digital labour platform operator must follow the code process in relation to the proposed deactivation of an employee-like worker, who is protected from unfair deactivation, from a digital labour platform if:

(a) the operator is considering deactivating the worker from the platform; and

(i) subject to subsection (2), a matter related to the worker's conduct in performing work through or by means of the platform; or

(ii) a matter related to the worker's capacity to perform work through or by means of the platform.

Note 1: To be protected from unfair deactivation from a digital labour platform, an employee-like worker must have performed work through or by means of the platform on a regular basis for at least 6 months (see paragraph 536LD(c) of the Act).

Note 2: For circumstances in which work is performed on a regular basis, see section 18.

(2) The code process does not apply to the deactivation of an employee-like worker by a digital labour platform operator for serious misconduct by the worker.

Note 1: A deactivation that occurs because of serious misconduct of the person who is deactivated is not unfair (see subsection 536LH(2) of the Act).

Note 2: Serious misconduct has the meaning prescribed by the regulations (see section 12 of the Act).

Note 3: Subsections 536LH(3) and (4) of the Act also provide that certain short-term deactivations are not unfair.

8 Deactivation warning generally required before deactivation

(1) Before deactivating an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform, a digital labour platform operator must give the worker a notice in writing (the deactivation warning) stating that the worker risks being deactivated from the platform for a reason related to the worker's conduct or capacity.

(a) specify the reason, relating to the employee-like worker's conduct or capacity, for which it is given; and

(b) state that the worker risks being deactivated from the digital labour platform if:

(i) the worker does not, within a reasonable time, remedy the matters that are the subject of the warning; or

(ii) the reason for giving the warning continues or is repeated; or

(iii) another issue, relating to the worker's conduct or capacity, arises; and

(c) state that the worker may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity), who may be a delegate or an employee of an organisation, in relation to the deactivation warning.

Note 1: For organisation in paragraph (c), see section 12 of the Act.

Note 2: The worker may also appoint a person to provide the worker with support or representation (see section 16).

(3) The deactivation warning must include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

Note: In giving a deactivation warning, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

9 Exception - circumstances when deactivation warning not required

(1) Despite section 8, a digital labour platform operator is not required to give an employee-like worker a deactivation warning before deactivating, under Division 3, the worker if the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the matter relating to the worker's conduct or capacity is such that:

(a) it warrants immediate modification or suspension of the worker's access to the digital labour platform; or

(b) it is not reasonable to expect the operator to allow the worker to continue to perform work through or by means of the platform.

Note: The following are examples of when subsection (1) might apply:

(a) immediate suspension of an employee-like worker is required for health or safety reasons;

(b) an employee-like worker loses a licence or accreditation and, as a result, has no legal right to perform the work;

(c) an employee-like worker engages in fraudulent or dishonest conduct;

(d) an employee-like worker's conduct is or will be referred to a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), one or more reports or complaints made to the digital labour platform operator may constitute reasonable grounds for the operator's opinion about the employee-like worker's conduct or capacity.

(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may constitute reasonable grounds for such an opinion.

(a) a digital labour platform operator is, under section 9, not required to give an employee-like worker a deactivation warning before deactivating the worker; or

(b) a digital labour platform operator has given an employee-like worker a deactivation warning and the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that deactivation of the worker is justified because:

(i) the worker has not, within a reasonable time, remedied the matters that were the subject of the warning; or

(ii) the reason for giving the warning has continued or been repeated; or

(iii) another issue, relating to the worker's conduct or capacity, has arisen.

11 Operator must give preliminary deactivation notice

(1) If this Division applies, the digital labour platform operator must give the employee-like worker a notice (the preliminary deactivation notice) that specifies the following matters:

(a) the reason, relating to the conduct or capacity of the employee-like worker, for which the notice is given;

(b) that the digital labour platform operator is considering terminating the worker's access to the digital labour platform;

(ii) a right to request a discussion with a representative of the operator; within a reasonable period specified in the notice;

(d) that the worker may appoint a person to provide the worker with support or representation (see section 16).

(2) The preliminary deactivation notice must include sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Note: In giving a preliminary deactivation notice, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

12 Modification or suspension of access to platform

(1) If this Division applies, a digital labour platform operator may modify or suspend the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform.

(2) The modification or suspension may take effect before or after the digital labour platform operator gives a preliminary deactivation notice.

(3) If the digital labour platform operator modifies or suspends the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform, the operator must notify the worker, in writing, of the following matters:

(a) the time and day from which the modification or suspension takes effect;

(b) the consequences of the modification or suspension for the worker's access to the platform.

(4) The matters under subsection (3) must be notified as follows:

(a) if the modification or suspension takes effect before the digital labour platform operator gives a preliminary deactivation notice to the employee-like worker - as part of the preliminary deactivation notice to be given to the worker as soon as reasonably practicable after the modification or suspension takes effect;

(b) if the modification or suspension takes effect at the same time as the preliminary deactivation notice is given - as part of the preliminary deactivation notice;

(c) if the modification or suspension takes effect after the preliminary deactivation notice is given - before the modification or suspension takes effect.

13 Steps after preliminary deactivation notice is given

Worker's response to preliminary deactivation notice

(1) An employee-like worker may respond to a preliminary deactivation notice given to the worker by a digital labour platform operator.

(2) The response must be given within the period specified in the preliminary deactivation notice, or within such longer period as is agreed between the operator and the worker.

(3) The response may be in writing or may be given orally (including as part of the discussion mentioned below).

(4) The employee-like worker may, within the period mentioned in paragraph 11(1)(c), request the digital labour platform operator to make a representative of the operator available to discuss the preliminary deactivation notice.

(5) If an employee-like worker makes such a request, the digital labour platform operator must make a representative available for the discussion within a reasonable time.

(6) A person appointed by the employee-like worker for support or representation (see section 16) may participate in the discussion.

(7) A human representative of the digital labour platform operator must consider the employee-like worker's response (if any), including the discussion (if any) between the worker and the digital labour platform operator's representative.

(8) The digital labour platform operator must make such further inquiries (if any) as are reasonably warranted after considering the employee-like worker's response.

(a) a preliminary deactivation notice is issued to an employee-like worker after a report or complaint about the worker is made to the digital labour platform operator; and

(b) the report or complaint concerns a matter that, if true, would constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of the worker; and

(i) the worker's response to the notice under this section does not provide adequate information to address the report or complaint; or

(ii) the worker provides no response to the notice under this section;

then, if the operator terminates the worker's access to the platform, the termination is taken, for the purposes of subsection 14(4), to be termination for a valid reason that the operator considers on reasonable grounds has been established.

14 Outcome of digital labour platform operator's consideration and inquiries

(1) After giving a preliminary deactivation notice, and complying with any applicable requirements in section 13, a digital labour platform operator must decide whether to:

(a) take no further action in relation to the employee-like worker; or

(b) terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform.

(2) The digital labour platform operator must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the employee-like worker in writing of the operator's decision.

(3) If the digital labour platform operator decides to take no further action in relation to the employee-like worker, the operator must lift any modification or suspension of the worker's access to the digital labour platform imposed under this Division.

(4) The digital labour platform operator may terminate the employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if:

(a) the reason for the termination is a valid reason; and

(b) the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established.

(5) If the digital labour platform operator decides to terminate the employee-like worker's access, the operator must, as soon as reasonably practicable, give the employee-like worker a written notice (the final deactivation notice) that:

(a) states that the operator has decided to terminate the worker's access to the digital labour platform; and

(b) specifies the reason for the termination; and

(c) specifies the time and day on which the termination will take effect (which may be immediately); and

(d) specifies when and how any final payments owing to the worker will be made.

(6) The final deactivation notice must contain sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of the employee-like worker to understand the matters mentioned in subsection (5).

Note: In giving a final deactivation notice, a digital labour platform operator is not required to disclose information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual (see section 17).

Division 4 - Matters relating to code process generally

A digital labour platform operator must use reasonable endeavours to ensure that:

(a) a process required to be conducted in accordance with this Part is carried out within a reasonable time frame; and

(b) an employee-like worker is given a reasonable time to exercise the worker's right of response under section 13.

(1) An employee-like worker may appoint a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) to provide the worker with support or representation in relation to the deactivation of the worker, under this Part, from a digital labour platform.

(2) The person may be a delegate or an employee of an organisation.

17 Information disclosure and law enforcement or regulatory obligations

(1) Nothing in this Part requires a digital labour platform operator to disclose any information about an individual if the operator considers, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure may pose a risk to the safety or security of the individual.

(2) Nothing in this Part requires a digital labour platform operator to contravene:

(a) a lawful direction given by a law enforcement or regulatory agency to the operator; or

(b) any obligations that the operator has in relation to the protection of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988).

Part 3 - Matters relating to deactivation generally

18 Circumstances in which work is performed on a regular basis

(1) This section sets out, for the purposes of paragraph 536LJ(2)(a) of the Act, some circumstances in which work is taken to be performed by an employee-like worker on a regular basis.

Note: To be protected from unfair deactivation from a digital labour platform, an employee-like worker must have performed work through or by means of the platform on a regular basis for at least 6 months (see paragraph 536LD(c) of the Act).

(2) An employee-like worker who completes, on average, 60 hours of paid work each month through or by means of a digital labour platform is taken to perform that work on a regular basis.

(3) An employee-like worker who completes, on average, paid work on 3 days of each week through or by means of a digital labour platform is taken to perform that work on a regular basis.

(4) A reference in this section to time spent completing paid work is a reference to the time spent in undertaking the work for which the employee-like worker is entitled to be paid. Note: An effect of this subsection is that time spent waiting for work, or between tasks constituting the work, is not counted.

(5) An employee-like worker may be taken to perform work on a regular basis through or by means of a digital labour platform even though the worker elects, in some weeks, not to perform any work through or by means of the platform.

(6) This section does not limit the circumstances in which work is taken to be performed by an employee-like worker on a regular basis.

19 Matters that may constitute a valid reason for deactivation

(1) A matter set out in any of the following subsections may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform if it arises in the course of, or in relation to, the worker performing work through or by means of the platform.

Note: If the matter constitutes serious misconduct, the digital labour platform operator is not required to follow the code process in relation to deactivation of the employee-like worker (see subsection 7(2)).

(2) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to meet one or more of the following requirements, to the extent that the requirement is reasonable and is known to the worker as a result of communication from the digital labour platform operator or otherwise:

(a) the requirements of the worker's services contract with the digital labour platform operator;

(b) the conditions of use of the digital labour platform;

(c) the operator's standards or requirements in relation to quality, service level or performance;

(d) the operator's code of conduct for the platform;

(e) any other legally binding requirements on the worker's use of the platform not mentioned in an earlier paragraph of this subsection.

(3) The employee-like worker engages in inappropriate physical or verbal conduct including, without limitation, conduct of a violent, threatening, harassing, discriminatory, sexual or abusive nature.

(4) The digital labour platform operator considers on reasonable grounds that:

(a) the employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a work health and safety duty of the worker; or

(b) deactivation of the employee-like worker is necessary to protect the health and safety of any person.

(5) The performance of work through or by means of the digital labour platform requires the employee-like worker to drive a motor vehicle and, in doing so, the worker engages in unsafe driving practices (including speeding).

(6) The employee-like worker misuses information about the following persons obtained by the worker in performing work through or by means of the digital labour platform:

(c) another employee-like worker who performs work through or by means of the platform;

(7) The employee-like worker engages in fraudulent or dishonest conduct, including theft of property.

(8) The employee-like worker deliberately causes damage to another person's property.

(9) The employee-like worker engages in conduct that results in the referral or report of the worker's conduct to a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(a) fails or refuses to comply with a mandatory industry code of conduct that applies to work performed through or by means of the digital labour platform; or

(b) engages in conduct that causes, or may cause, the digital labour platform operator to breach such a code of conduct.

(11) The digital labour platform operator is requested by a law enforcement or regulatory agency to remove the employee-like worker from performing work through or by means of the digital labour platform. Licensing, accreditation and screening requirements etc.

(12) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a licensing or accreditation requirement that is:

(a) necessary to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform; and

(b) administered or enforced by a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(13) The employee-like worker loses a licence or accreditation necessary for the worker to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform.

(14) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to maintain the worker's tools or equipment so as to meet relevant licensing or accreditation requirements.

(15) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to comply with a mandatory screening or registration requirement necessary to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform.

(16) The employee-like worker fails or refuses to perform work through or by means of the digital labour platform for which payment is made to the worker for such period that the digital labour platform operator must deactivate the worker to comply with a requirement of a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

(17) This section does not limit the matters that may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker from a digital labour platform.

(1) A digital labour platform operator must ensure that, except as otherwise provided in this instrument, all communications and information relating to the code process and the deactivation of an employee-like worker from the digital labour platform are made in writing using one or both of the following methods:

(b) an appropriate alternative method determined by the operator acting reasonably.

(2) If the digital labour platform operator uses the digital labour platform for communications and information, the operator must ensure that the employee-like worker has sufficient access to the platform to enable the worker to access and respond to the communications and information.

21 Data and platform access following reinstatement

(1) This section applies if a digital labour platform operator takes any of the following action in relation to the deactivation of an employee-like worker's access to a digital labour platform:

(c) reinstates the worker's access to the platform after having previously terminated such access.

(2) The digital labour platform operator must ensure that, as soon as reasonably practicable after the operator takes the action mentioned in subsection (1):

(a) the employee-like worker has the same access to the digital labour platform (including to data and information relating to the worker's performance of work through or by means of the platform) that the worker had immediately before the deactivation; and

(b) in a case where the deactivation affected the worker's status or ranking on the platform - the worker retains a status or ranking no lower than that held by the worker immediately before the deactivation.

22 Record keeping for worker data and deactivation processes

(1) A digital labour platform operator must make and keep records of the following matters to the extent that the operator considers reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance with this instrument:

(a) data relating to the work performed through or by means of the digital labour platform by an employee-like worker;

(b) the processes followed, and the decisions made, in relation to the deactivation of each employee-like worker from the digital labour platform.

(2) The records must be kept for so long as the digital labour platform operator considers reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance with this instrument.

(3) To the extent that the records are or include personal information within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988, the records must be collected, used and disclosed only in accordance with that Act."

• [6] As set out above, section 14(4) of the Code permits a digital labour platform operator to terminate an employee-like worker's access to the digital labour platform only if (a) the reason for the termination is a valid reason and (b) the operator considers on reasonable grounds that the reason has been established. It is arguable that subsection 14(4)(a) of the Code requires an objective determination of whether alleged conduct occurred in order to assess whether a reason "is a valid reason" - similar to the approach under section 387(a) of the Act, which governs unfair dismissal. Under Part 3-2 of the Act (unfair dismissal), it is insufficient for an employer to merely hold a reasonable belief; the Commission must find, on the balance of probabilities, that the conduct occurred.[1]

• [7] However, subsection 14(4)(a) must be read in conjunction with subsection 14(4)(b) of the Code, which introduces both a subjective and an objective element. The subjective element is that the operator must consider that the reason for terminating the worker's access to the digital labour platform has been established. The objective element is that there must be reasonable grounds for the operator's belief that the reason has been established. This indicates that the Code does not require the Commission to make a factual finding about whether or not alleged conduct occurred, but rather to assess whether the operator's belief is supported by reasonable grounds.

• [8] In light of this, the requirement in paragraph 14(4)(a) of the Code - that the reason is a valid reason - should be understood as a test of the quality of the reason. That is, whether the reason is valid in the sense of being "sound, defensible or well-founded," and not "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced".[2] A reason that is "valid" will involve something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour, and must be of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation.[3] This is a question of characterisation, not proof. The Commission's role under the Code is to evaluate whether the reason being relied on by the operator for deactivation meets this standard of being a "valid reason", rather than to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred.

• [9] Section 19 of the Code sets out matters that "may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation of an employee-like worker". One such matter is where the employee-like worker fails or refuses to meet one of the requirements specified in s 19(2)(a) to (e) of the Code, "to the extent that the requirement is reasonable and is known to the worker as a result of communication from the digital labour platform operator or otherwise". Whether such a requirement is "reasonable" must be judged objectively having regard to all the circumstances.[4] It is not necessary to show that the requirement is the preferable or most appropriate course of action or in accordance with "best practice" or in the best interests of the parties.[5] The test is not whether the requirement is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made the decision.[6] There may be a range of options open to a digital labour platform operator within the bounds of reasonableness.[7] However, a decision which does not have an evident or intelligible justification will be unreasonable.[8]

• [10] On 30 April 2023, Ms Devi entered into a delivery person agreement with Uber and Uber Technologies Inc. Clause 5.1(l) of the agreement provides that Ms Devi "must comply with the Community Guidelines and other Policies". Clause 16.1 of the agreement defines Community Guidelines to "mean the policy available at https://www.uber.com/au/en/safety/uber-community-guidelines?."

• [11] Clause 5.3 of the agreement governs how ratings work. It provides:

(a) You, Customers and Delivery Recipients have the option on the Uber apps to provide feedback (including a rating) about the Delivery Services or, in your case, the Customer or Delivery Recipient. If you do provide a rating or feedback, you must provide it in good faith. Feedback and ratings are Uber Data.

(b) Uber, Portier Pacific and their Affiliates are not required to verify any feedback or ratings. Uber may edit or remove comments if they include obscenities, objectionable content or Personal Data, or if they violate Law or the Community Guidelines."

• [12] Uber's Community Guidelines relevantly provide:

"...Not following any one of our guidelines can constitute a material breach or violation of the terms of your agreement with Uber and may result in the loss of access to part or all of the Uber Marketplace Platform.

Everyone who signs up for an Uber account is required to follow Uber's Community Guidelines....

Drivers, riders, delivery people, Uber Eats users and merchants can give and receive ratings, as well as give feedback on how the trip or delivery went. This feedback system improves accountability and helps create a respectful, safe and transparent environment for everyone. Drivers and delivery people can see their current rating in the app. Merchants can find their Uber Eats user and delivery person rating by signing into Uber Eats Manager. Riders can see their rating displayed under their name by opening the app and touching the menu.

There is a minimum average rating in each city. This is because there may be cultural differences in the way people in different cities rate each other. Drivers, riders, delivery people or merchants that don't meet the minimum average rating for their city may lose access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. If your rating is approaching this limit, we will let you know and may share information that may help you improve your rating.

If you're looking to keep your average rating high, it's helpful to be courteous and respectful to all people while using the Uber Marketplace Platform and interacting with others in the Uber community. Drivers and delivery people using the Uber Marketplace Platform typically provide excellent service to their riders and recipients, and most riders, delivery people and recipients are courteous and respectful, so most trips and deliveries run smoothly. Contacting Support will not lead to an individual rating being removed. We know that sometimes a trip or delivery doesn't go well-that's why your rating is an average rating.

If you're a driver and you lose access to your Uber account for low ratings, you may have the opportunity to get back on the road if you meet eligibility requirements and provide proof that you've successfully taken a quality improvement course offered by third-party experts.

Check with the Uber Support team or go to help.uber.com to find out more.

Losing access to the Uber Marketplace Platform may be disruptive to your life or to your business. That's why we believe it is important to have clear standards that explain the circumstances in which you may lose access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. If you violate any applicable terms of your contractual agreement with Uber, or any other applicable policies, any one of these Community Guidelines or any additional policies and standards that are communicated by Uber to you from time to time, you can lose access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. If you have more than one Uber account, such as a rider account and a driver account, violating the Community Guidelines could also lead you to lose access to all Uber accounts. If you believe an error caused you to lose access to your account, you may contact the Uber Support team.

Uber receives feedback through a variety of channels, reviews reports submitted to our Support team that may violate our Community Guidelines, and may investigate through a specialised team. If we are made aware of potentially problematic behaviour, we may contact you so we can look into it. We may, at our sole discretion, put a hold on your account or turn your account inactive until our review is complete.

Not following any one of our guidelines may result in the loss of access to all or part of the Uber Marketplace Platform. This can include reported violations of our Community Guidelines and certain actions you may take outside of the Uber Marketplace Platform, including but not limited to other platforms, if we determine that those actions threaten the safety of the Uber community, our employees and contractors or cause harm to Uber's brand, reputation or business. And if the issues raised are serious or a repeat report, or you refuse to cooperate, you may lose access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. Any behaviour involving violence, sexual misconduct, harassment, fraud or discrimination, or deceptive, illegal or unsafe activity, while using the Uber Marketplace Platform can result in the immediate loss of access to the Uber Marketplace Platform. Additionally, when law enforcement is involved, we will cooperate with their investigation in accordance with our Guidelines for Law Enforcement Authorities, found here.

Many states, cities, and airports regulate the provision of certain services, including ridesharing services, on the Uber Marketplace Platform. If we determine that your driver or delivery person account is not in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, we may be required to remove your access to the Uber Marketplace Platform.

Lastly, all drivers and delivery people wanting to use the Uber Marketplace Platform undergo a screening process, including motor vehicle record and background checks. A driver or delivery person will lose access to their Uber account(s) if a routine motor vehicle record check, background check or other check uncovers a violation of Uber's Community Guidelines or other criteria required by local regulators.

To read more about our Community Guidelines, go here.

Riders and Uber Eats users can access Terms of Use for Australia here and for New Zealand here. Partners can access their legal agreement with Uber here."

• [13] On 6 June 2023, Ms Devi commenced performing work through the Uber app as a Delivery Person.

• [14] Ms Devi gave evidence that she was able to see her satisfaction rating in her profile on the Uber app. Ms Devi also gave evidence that she understood customers could rate her delivery services and there was a minimum customer satisfaction rating she had to meet, but Ms Devi was not aware that the minimum satisfaction rating for drivers in Darwin was 85%.

• [15] On 20 April 2025, Uber sent a low ratings education notice to Ms Devi. It stated:

"Your satisfaction rating is low, here's how to improve

The average Satisfaction Rating in your city is 93%

We want to share some tips with you to help improve your satisfaction rating.

Delivery People in Darwin have an average rating of 93%. The target minimum rating in your city is 85% and you are required to meet the minimum rating in your city to keep delivering with Uber Eats.

Follow drop-off instructions, and confirm with customers when the instructions are confusing: customers will often communicate in the app whether they want you to meet them at their door, or drop off the order in a certain location. Take extra care when delivering to apartments: if need be, communicate with the customer to ensure you find the correct location.

Being respectful: being respectful in your interactions with customers may help encourage more positive ratings. Avoid unnecessary detours or long trips: while customers understand sometimes their order may be late due to circumstances outside of your control and safety shouldn't be compromised, if the customer sees you taking long detours or pauses during the trip, they'll be much more likely to give a thumbs down.

Take care with the order: making sure to deliver the customer's order in good condition will encourage more thumbs ups. Additionally, be careful with non-food deliveries as they may be fragile.

Want to learn more? Opt in to the voluntary order accuracy, order quality, or drop-off education module here.

As a reminder, there is a minimum rating in each city. Delivery People are required to maintain ratings above the minimum rating for their city to keep their access to the Uber Eats platform. In your city, the minimum rating for Delivery People is 85%. If you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold, your account may be at risk for deactivation."

• [16] On 22 May 2025, Uber sent a first deactivation warning to Ms Devi. It stated:

Your satisfaction rating is below the minimum threshold of 85% for your city. As a reminder, under Uber's Community Guidelines, Delivery People who do not meet the minimum satisfaction rating for their city may lose their access to the Uber Driver app.

If you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold, your account may be at risk for deactivation.

You may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to this message.

For a reminder on how to get great ratings from customers and merchants, read our Delivery Tips and Tricks."

• [17] On 30 May 2025, Uber sent a second deactivation warning to Ms Devi. It stated:

We previously let you know that your ratings were below the minimum satisfaction rating for your city. However, you have continued to receive low ratings from consumers and merchants. As a reminder, under Uber's Community Guidelines, Delivery People who do not meet the minimum satisfaction rating for their city may lose their access to the Uber Driver app. The minimum satisfaction rating in your city is 85%.

Your account will be deactivated if you continue to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold.

You may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to this message.

For a reminder on how to get great ratings from customers and merchants, read our Delivery Tips and Tricks."

• [18] Ms Devi did not read the low ratings education notice or the first or second deactivation warnings until after she was deactivated. At that time, Ms Devi showed her Uber app to her husband because she could not access the app and her ability to read and speak English is limited. Ms Devi's husband told her that her access to the Uber app had been closed.

• [19] On 1 July 2025, Uber sent a preliminary deactivation notice to Ms Devi. It stated:

According to your agreement with Uber (which includes adhering to our Community Guidelines), which can be accessed through your profile, you are required to maintain a rating above the minimum average rating in your city.

You are receiving this message because your rating has continued to be below the minimum average rating required for Delivery People in your city and we are considering terminating your access to the Uber Driver app.

Before a final decision is made, we are providing you with the opportunity to respond to this preliminary deactivation notice. During this period, we have suspended your access to the platform which takes effect immediately from the time and date of this notice (1 July 2025). Suspension of your access means that you will be unable to accept or complete trips/deliveries during the suspension period.

You may provide an explanation or relevant information regarding the flagged activity. Please respond using the link below within 7 days from the date of this notice to ensure your input is considered.

You may also request a discussion with a representative of Uber Eats. If you wish to do so, please submit your request using the link below within 2 days.

You are entitled to appoint a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) to support or represent you during this process.

Once your request has been submitted, a member of our team will begin the review process. Please note, this can take up to 7-10 business days, but it may take longer. We'll send you a message letting you know the outcome of Uber's decision."

• [20] Between 1 and 3 July 2025, Ms Devi sent the following three responses to Uber's preliminary deactivation notice:

"I have no idea why my account is being suspended, I work hard that's only job I have

If I need to improve something I can try to improve

New information submitted on Jul 03, 2025 11:29:50PM UTC:

Details: Please give me one last chance and restart my account again from start, I have no idea before that's happening with my satisfaction rating, I am mom of one little boy and that's the only job I have and that's important for me,

Please don't make me job, everyone deserves a last chance please I am begging from you for last chance please.

Please give me a last chanyad activate my uber eats account or

New information submitted on Jul 02, 2025 12:44:10AM UTC:

I have no idea what I have done please explain to me, I am mom of one boy that's only source of income I have if I need to improve anything, I am happy to follow instructor form you guys please help me

Help me who should I reach out to to active my account

I haven't received any warning or any email form you guys before you have deactivate my Uber eats account

• [21] Ms Devi did not, in any of her three responses to the preliminary deactivation notice, request a discussion with a member of the relevant Uber team.

• [22] Initially, Ms Devi gave evidence that she did not see the preliminary deactivation notice until after her account was deactivated. But after Ms Devi was shown evidence of her three responses to the preliminary deactivation notice, she accepted that she had seen it.

• [23] On about 7 July 2025, a member of Uber's Community Operations team considered Ms Devi's response to the preliminary deactivation notice. The member of Uber's Community Operations team decided that no further reasonable inquiries were warranted. They decided that Ms Devi's access to the Uber app should be deactivated because:

(a) Ms Devi consistently had an average customer satisfaction rating below the minimum threshold of 85% for the city of Darwin; and

(b) Ms Devi's responses did not provide adequate information to address the low ratings.

• [24] On 7 July 2025, Uber sent a final deactivation notice to Ms Devi. It stated:

"Your response has been reviewed and your account has been deactivated

After carefully reviewing your account and the information you submitted as part of your response, we've decided to terminate your access to the Uber Driver app for the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to you. This decision is final.

Your preliminary deactivation notice can be found in your email inbox or the inbox of the Uber Driver app.

This deactivation will take effect immediately upon receipt of this email.

Your final payment will be deposited into your account during the next payment cycle."

• [25] On 8 July 2025, Ms Devi requested a discussion with a representative of Uber. No such discussion occurred because the request was made five days later than the timeframe specified in the preliminary deactivation notice.

• [26] At the time of her deactivation, Ms Devi had an average customer satisfaction rating of 76%.

• [27] At the time Ms Devi received a low ratings education notice from Uber on 20 April 2025, her rating was 84%. For deliveries performed between 20 April 2025 and when she received a deactivation warning on 22 May 2025, Ms Devi had a satisfaction rating of 71%. For deliveries performed between 22 May 2025 and when she received a second deactivation warning on 30 May 2025, Ms Devi had a satisfaction rating of 80%.

• [28] Ms Devi contends in these proceedings that her customer satisfaction rating was impacted by factors beyond her control. In particular, Ms Devi contends that (a) she encountered persistent network issues that disrupted the Uber app's navigation system, resulting in delivery delays and (b) she received damaged or incomplete orders from restaurants or merchants which unfairly impacted her performance metrics. Uber analysed these claims by reference to the reasons cited by customers for their thumbs down rating of the delivery services provided by Ms Devi. That analysis shows:

• Between 3 March 2025 and 26 June 2025, the most common cited reasons for the thumbs down of the delivery services provided by Ms Devi included:

• Of the last 100 rated trips undertaken by Ms Devi, zero low ratings referred to delays and Ms Devi did not raise an internal note on the Uber app to report alleged network issues.

• Of the last 100 rated trips undertaken by Ms Devi, one rating referred to "rush items damaged".

• [29] Uber's reason for deactivating Ms Devi related to her conduct in performing work through or by means of the Uber app. As a result, to be taken to comply with the Code, Uber was required to follow the Code process, as set out in Part 2 of the Code, in relation to Uber's proposed deactivation of Ms Devi (s 7(1) of the Code).

• [30] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 8 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 20 April 2025, 22 May 2025 and 30 May 2025, Uber gave Ms Devi deactivation warnings, in writing, stating that she was at risk of being deactivated from the Uber app because her satisfaction rating was below the minimum threshold of 85% for the city of Darwin. This reason for Ms Devi's potential deactivation related to her conduct; and

(b) The deactivation warnings given to Ms Devi on 20 April 2025, 22 May 2025 and 30 May 2025:

(i) specified the reason, relating to Ms Devi's conduct, in particular her low customer satisfaction ratings, for which the warnings were given;

(ii) stated that Ms Devi was at risk of being deactivated from the Uber app if she continued to receive ratings below the minimum average ratings threshold; and

(iii) stated (in the 22 May and 30 May warnings, but not the 20 April low ratings education notice) that Ms Devi may seek assistance or support from a person (other than a lawyer acting in a professional capacity) in relation to the warning.

• [31] Section 9 of the Code is not applicable. Uber does not contend that a deactivation warning was not required to be given to Ms Devi.

• [32] Division 3 of the Code applied to Ms Devi's deactivation because Uber gave Ms Devi a deactivation warning and considered, on reasonable grounds, that deactivation of Ms Devi was justified on the basis that the reason for the warning (low customer satisfaction ratings) had continued or been repeated (s 10(b) of the Code).

• [33] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 11 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 1 July 2025, Uber gave Ms Devi a preliminary deactivation notice that specified the following matters:

(i) the reason for which the notice was given: continuing to be rated below the minimum customer satisfaction rating for Uber Eats' Delivery Partners in the city of Darwin;

(ii) that Uber was considering terminating Ms Devi's access to the Uber app;

(iii) that Ms Devi had a right to respond to the notice within 7 days and submit a request, within 2 days, for a discussion with a representative of Uber. These were reasonable periods of time in the circumstances; and

(iv) that Ms Devi was entitled to appoint a person to provide her with support or representation; and

(b) The preliminary deactivation notice given by Uber to Ms Devi included sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of Ms Devi to understand the matters mentioned in s 11(1) of the Code.

• [34] I am satisfied that Uber suspended Ms Devi's access to the Uber app in a manner consistent with section 12 of the Code, for the following reasons:

(a) Ms Devi's suspension took effect at the same time Uber gave Ms Devi a preliminary deactivation notice (ss 12(2) & (4) of the Code); and

(b) On 1 July 2025, Uber notified Ms Devi, in writing and as part of the preliminary deactivation notice, of the time and day from which the suspension would take effect (immediately from the time and date of the preliminary deactivation notice) and the consequences of the suspension for Ms Devi's access to the Uber app (Ms Devi would be unable to accept or complete trips/deliveries during the suspension period) (s 12(3) of the Code).

• [35] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 13 of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) Between 1 and 3 July 2025, Ms Devi responded, in writing, to the preliminary deactivation notice given to her by Uber (s 13(1) of the Code);

(b) Ms Devi did not, within the two day period allowed, request to discuss the preliminary deactivation notice with a representative of Uber (s 13(4) of the Code);

(c) A human representative of Uber's Community Operations team considered Ms Devi's responses to the preliminary deactivation notice (s 13(7) of the Code); and

(d) A human representative of Uber's Community Operations team decided, reasonably in my view, that no further inquiries were reasonably warranted after considering Ms Devi's response (s 13(8) of the Code).

• [36] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 14(1) and (2) of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) After giving a preliminary deactivation notice to Ms Devi and complying with the applicable requirements in s 13, Uber decided, on 7 July 2025, to terminate Ms Devi's access to the Uber app (s 14(1) of the Code); and

(b) On 7 July 2025, Uber notified Ms Devi, in writing, of its decision to terminate her access to the Uber app. Because this notification was provided on the same day as the decision to terminate was made, the notification clearly took place 'as soon as practicable' (s 14(2) of the Code).

• [37] Section 14(4) of the Code is concerned with valid reason, which in this case brings into question whether, under s 19(2) of the Code, an employee-like worker has failed or refused to meet a reasonable requirement imposed by the digital labour platform operator. Ms Fairlie gave the following unchallenged evidence, which I accept, in relation to the reasonableness of Uber's requirement that Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Darwin achieve a minimum average customer satisfaction rating of 85%:

"Typical ordering experience on the Uber Eats App

1. The Uber Delivery Platform is accessed by consumers through an online smartphone application (Uber Eats App). Through the Uber Eats App, consumers can order food and other items from restaurants, supermarkets and other businesses (Merchants) and have the order delivered to an address nominated by them.

1. When a consumer orders items from a Merchant through the Uber Eats App, the consumer receives a notification if the order is accepted by the Merchant. If the order is accepted, the consumer will also be shown an estimated time of delivery in the Uber Eats App which is based on the estimated time for the Merchant to prepare the order and the Delivery Person to collect and deliver the order.

1. Once a consumer has placed an order and the order has been accepted by a Merchant, the Respondent's technology operates to surface an offer to perform the delivery to a nearby Delivery Person via a separate, non-consumer app that Delivery People and Merchants use to access the Uber Delivery Platform.

1. Consumers are able to track their order live in the Uber Eats App. They can see how long each step of the delivery takes, including the time it takes a Merchant to prepare the order, when the Delivery Person has collected the order, the estimated time for delivery and the approximate location of the Delivery Person on a map once the order has been collected and is out for delivery.

1. Consumers can leave specific instructions for the Delivery Person through the Uber Eats App in relation to the delivery of the order, for example, how to access an apartment building or nominate a place to leave the order.

1. Once the Delivery Person has delivered the order, the consumer will receive a notification through the Uber Eats App confirming the order has been delivered.

Process for rating delivery people in the Uber Eats App

1. Following the completion of a delivery, consumers are prompted to review the Delivery Person's service through the Uber Eats App. They also have the opportunity to provide an optional tip. A review by a consumer in the Uber Eats App for a Delivery Person consists of the following steps:

(a) a consumer is asked to rate the Delivery Person by clicking on a thumbs up or thumbs down button on the app interface;

(b) once the consumer has selected the initial rating of thumbs up or thumbs down, the consumer is given the option to select one or more pre-determined feedback buttons about their delivery experience.

1. The feedback options that are available to a consumer depend on whether they select the thumbs up or thumbs down button for the delivery. If the consumer selects the thumbs up button, the feedback buttons available to them are: "Great communication", "Delivered with care", "Easy to retrieve order", "Efficient", or "Friendly Service".

1. If a consumer selects the thumbs down button for the delivery, the feedback buttons available to them are: "Unprofessional", "Items damaged", "Communication", "Didn't match photo", "Missed instructions", or "Wrong vehicle".

1. A consumer can also review a Merchant and the goods received from the Merchant in the Uber Eats App. A review by a consumer for a Merchant consists of the following steps:

(a) a consumer is asked to rate the items received from the Merchant through the Uber Eats App by selecting a star rating from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest) on the app interface;

(b) once the consumer has left the initial rating from 1 to 5, the consumer is able to select one or more pre-determined feedback buttons about the items they received from the Merchant in the app. A consumer also has the option to enter free text to add a positive Merchant review.

1. The feedback options available to the consumer change based on the star rating provided for a Merchant. If the consumer chooses a star rating of 4 or 5, the feedback buttons available to the consumer vary based on the merchant cuisine.

1. If a consumer leaves a star rating between 1 and 3, the options available include: "Poorly packed", "Missed order notes", "Not worth price", "Not so tasty", "Too slow", or "Unsustainable packaging".

1. Merchants are also able to review the delivery service provided by any Delivery Person who completes a delivery of goods from that Merchant. A review by a Merchant for a Delivery Person consists of the following steps:

(a) a Merchant is asked to rate the delivery person through the Uber Eats App by clicking on a thumbs up or thumbs down button on the app interface;

(b) once the Merchant has left the initial rating of thumbs up or down, the Merchant is able to select one or more pre-determined feedback buttons about their experience with the delivery person. For example, a merchant can choose "Friendly service", "Great communication", or "Quick & efficient" as positive feedback, or "Ignored pickup note", "Unprofessional", or "Arrived too late" as negative feedback.

1. There is no ability for consumers or Merchants to provide free-text comments within the Uber Eats App about a Delivery Person's service.

1. If consumers, Merchants or Delivery People experience a problem with an order or delivery, they are able to click on a 'Help' button within the relevant Uber Eats App (for consumers and Delivery People) or the Uber Eats tablet (for Merchants) and raise their issue via chat with Uber Support.

1. The Respondent uses the ratings provided by consumers and Merchants of a Delivery Person's service to calculate an average rating for a Delivery Person. This is to ensure that Delivery People are providing services which are satisfactory to consumers, Merchants and the Respondent.

1. From January to June 2025, about 7.2% of all orders placed on the Uber Eats platform in Australia were rated by consumers or Merchants. It is not compulsory for consumers or Merchants to rate their experience but, during the same period, positive customer and Merchant ratings of Delivery People significantly outweighed negative ratings, with 93% of all rated orders receiving a thumbs up.

1. A Delivery Partner's last 100 consumer ratings are used to calculate their average rating. For example, if a Delivery Partner's last 100 consumer ratings include 90 thumbs up and 10 thumbs down, the Delivery Partner will have an average rating of 90%.

1. The Respondent determines a minimum acceptable average rating for Delivery People in each city. The Respondent requires Delivery People to meet the minimum average rating set for the city in which they are performing deliveries to maintain the quality of the delivery service as well as the customer and Merchant experience.

1. The 85% minimum average rating threshold applicable to the Applicant in Darwin was identified as the appropriate minimum for Darwin for a couple of key reasons:

(a) the 85% threshold is well below the median rating for Delivery People active in Darwin, which sat at about 94% between January and June 2025. In addition, the multi-stage approach of education and warnings prior to deactivation, whereby Delivery People are given a chance at each stage to improve their ratings trajectory above the minimum threshold, means sustained poor performance is required for deactivation. This ensures that there is an extremely low risk of a 'false positive', i.e. the deactivation of a well performing Delivery Person. This is further demonstrated by the fact that (b) analysis conducted by Uber's Consumer Pricing and Delivery Experience team shows that the number of defective orders increases significantly (by more than 40%) when delivered by a Delivery Person with an average rating of below 85%. Defective orders refer to any orders where a consumer contacts Uber support with an issue. The defect rate is the percentage of orders where a consumer has complained to Uber support. Defects can be raised for issues such as long delivery time, missing items, damaged food, etc. Defective orders have a direct impact on consumer experience, as well as the reliability and reputation of the delivery platform and Uber Eats brand. It also risks the Respondent losing consumers who may choose to order through another delivery platform or go directly to the Merchant to pick up their order or use the Merchant's own delivery service...

1. A Delivery Person can view their average rating at any time through the delivery person online delivery application (which is distinct from the customer-facing Uber Eats App). The Respondent notifies delivery people via an in app message and email at the time they reach the minimum ratings threshold applicable to them and provides them with education on how to improve. This education outlines the most common reasons why Delivery People receive lower than average ratings. Of the Delivery People between January and July 2025 who received education for low ratings, only 5% progressed to deactivation."

• [38] I accept that there is scope for a thumbs down rating given by a particular customer to Ms Devi to be an unfair rating. In particular, the rating may (a) be harsh in all the circumstances, (b) not properly reflect what actually happened, or (c) wrongly place blame on Ms Devi for something outside her control or the responsibility of another person. For example, if damaged food is delivered by Ms Devi to a customer, the damage may have been caused by a lack of care on Ms Devi's part or by the restaurant damaging the food in the process of preparing the food or packing it for delivery. Because restaurants usually place food into a bag and staple the top of the bag together, Delivery Partners do not have an opportunity to inspect food before it is collected by the Delivery Partner to be transported to the customer. Similarly, missing items from a delivery may be the fault of the restaurant if it does not place all items of food ordered by the customer into the bag for collection by the Delivery Partner. However, the fact that a customer can rate the restaurant that prepared the food means it is more likely, but not certain, that a customer would rate the restaurant, rather than the Delivery Partner, poorly if their food was missing items or poorly prepared.

• [39] Notwithstanding the scope for a thumbs down rating given by a particular customer to Ms Devi to be an unfair rating, I am satisfied that the requirement for Ms Devi to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85% was, judged objectively, reasonable in all the circumstances. First, there is an evident and intelligible justification for the requirement to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85%. In particular, the rating system "improves accountability and helps create a respectful, safe and transparent environment for everyone."[9] Secondly, Ms Devi was, at all times, on notice through the terms of her agreement with Uber and Uber's Community Guidelines of the requirement to maintain a minimum average customer satisfaction rating and that she may lose access to the Uber app if she failed to meet the minimum average customer satisfaction rating for the city in which she was operating. Thirdly, the median rating for Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Darwin between January and June 2025 was 94%. Fourthly, fewer than 1% of Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Darwin between January and June 2025 were deactivated as a result of low ratings. Fifthly, data analysed by Uber shows that where an Uber Eats Delivery Partner's average customer satisfaction rating fails to meet the minimum requirement, being 85% in Darwin, the number of defective orders increases significantly (by more than 40%), which has a direct impact on consumer experience, as well as the reliability and reputation of the delivery platform and Uber Eats brand. Sixthly, the fact that an individual customer rating may have been unreasonable is ameliorated by the fact that the minimum required customer satisfaction rating for Delivery Partners is an average, calculated on the basis of the Delivery Partner's last 100 customer ratings. Given that, on average, only about 7% of deliveries are rated by a customer, a Delivery Partner's last 100 customer ratings will typically be taken from their previous 1,428 deliveries.[10] Uber's data reveals that although the number of customers who rate Delivery Partners is low (about 7%), the typical behaviour of customers is to give a Delivery Partner a thumbs up rating. Seventhly, even if a Delivery Partner's customer satisfaction rating falls below the 85% threshold, they are not automatically or immediately deactivated. Instead, the Delivery Partner is warned by Uber about the level of their customer satisfaction rating, given a chance to improve their rating, given educational information to assist them to improve their customer satisfaction rating, and can monitor their customer satisfaction rating at any time in the Uber app. Ms Devi's customer satisfaction rating worsened after she was warned about the issue. Uber considered, rightly, that her performance was trending in the wrong direction at the time she was deactivated. Lastly, notwithstanding Ms Devi's claims that persistent network issues disrupted the Uber app's navigation system, resulting in delivery delays, and she received damaged or incomplete orders from restaurants or merchants which unfairly impacted her performance metrics, an analysis of Ms Devi's last 100 customer satisfaction ratings shows that (a) zero low ratings referred to delays and only one rating referred to "rush items damaged", and (b) Ms Devi did not raise an internal note on the Uber app to report alleged network issues or issues with poorly packaged or damaged food.

• [40] As to section 19(2) of the Code, I am satisfied that Uber's requirement for Ms Devi to maintain an average customer satisfaction rating of at least 85%, which she failed to meet, was:

(a) a requirement of the agreement (s 19(2)(a)), a requirement of the conditions of use of Uber's digital labour platform (s 19(2)(b)), and a requirement of Uber's standards in relation to quality, service level or performance (s 19(2)(c)). This is so because (i) clause 5.1 of the agreement required Ms Devi to comply with the Community Guidelines, which informed Ms Devi that she may lose access to the Uber app if she did not meet the minimum customer satisfaction rating for the city in which she operated, and (ii) clause 14.2(b) of the agreement permitted Uber to terminate the agreement if Ms Devi breached the Community Guidelines;

(b) reasonable, for the reasons given in paragraph [39] above; and

(c) known to Ms Devi as a result of communications by Uber to Ms Devi.

• [41] Accordingly, the requirements of s 19(2) of the Code are satisfied. This means at Uber's reason for deactivating Ms Devi "may constitute a valid reason for the deactivation" of Ms Devi (s 19(1) of the Code). I am satisfied that Ms Devi's failure to meet the minimum average customer satisfaction rating meets the standard of being a valid reason, because the reason relied on by Uber is properly characterised as one that is sound, defensible and well-founded, not capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced, involves something more than a minor failing or trivial misdemeanour, and is of sufficient gravity or seriousness to justify deactivation. It follows that I am satisfied that the reason for the termination of Ms Devi's access to the Uber app is a valid reason within the meaning of s 14(4) of the Code.

• [42] I am satisfied on the evidence before the Commission that Uber considers on reasonable grounds that its reason for terminating Ms Devi's access to the Uber app has been established (s 14(4)(b) of the Code). That Uber considers that its reason for terminating Ms Devi's access to the Uber app has been established is evident from the evidence given by Ms Fairlie. The reasonable grounds for that belief are apparent from the matters described in paragraphs [37] to [39] above.

• [43] I am satisfied that Uber complied with section 14(5) of the Code for the following reasons:

(a) On 7 July 2025, Uber gave Ms Devi a final deactivation notice that:

(i) stated that Uber had decided that Ms Devi's account would remain deactivated, which had the effect of informing Ms Devi that Uber had decided to terminate her access to the Uber app;

(ii) specified the reason for the termination, by referring Ms Devi to the reasons outlined in the preliminary deactivation notice previously sent to her;

(iii) specified the time and day on which the termination would take effect, by informing Ms Devi that her account would remain deactivated and the deactivation would take effect immediately on receipt of the email from Uber; and

(iv) specified when and how any final payments owing to Ms Devi would be made, by informing her that her final payment would be deposited into her account during the next payment cycle.

(b) The final deactivation notice given by Uber to Ms Devi contained sufficient information to enable a reasonable person in the position of Ms Devi to understand the matters mentioned in s 14(5) of the Code.

• [44] I am satisfied that Uber used its reasonable endeavours to ensure that the process it was required to conduct in accordance with Part 2 of the Code was carried out within a reasonable time frame and Ms Devi was given a reasonable time to exercise her right of response under s 13 of the Code (s 15 of the Code).

• [45] No issue arises in this case in relation to sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 or 22 of the Code.

• [46] For the reasons given, I am satisfied that Uber complied with the Code in relation to its deactivation of Ms Devi. Because Ms Devi's deactivation was consistent with the Code, she has not been unfairly deactivated (s 536LF(c) of the Act). It follows that Ms Devi's application for an unfair deactivation remedy must be dismissed.

• [47] It is unfortunate that Ms Devi only showed her husband the messages she received in the Uber app from time to time. If Ms Devi had showed the messages to her husband more frequently, or otherwise took steps to be able to understand the messages being sent to her by Uber, she may have been able to take steps, like almost all other Uber Eats Delivery Partners in Darwin, to improve her customer satisfaction rating and avoid being deactivated.

Ms J Leeds, solicitor, on behalf of the Respondent

[1] King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd (unreported, AIRCFB, Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000) Print S4213 [24]

[2] Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333; (1995) 62 IR 371 at 373

[3] Rabbi Pinchas Ash v Chabad Institutions of Victoria Limited [2020] FWCFB 44 at [18]

[4] CFMMEU v Mt Arthur Coal [2021] FWCFB 6059 at [71]- [80] & [259]-[264]

[9] Hearing Book at p 159 (final paragraph)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer