In a filing Thursday, Uber said the three complainants failed to establish that their own claims are typical of those that might be asserted by the over 160,000 drivers they seek to represent, as they signed only a handful of the 17 operative service agreements between Uber and drivers in California, and their experiences with the company's app differ considerably from many or most drivers.
"In sum, the putative class consists of more than 160,000 individuals who have little or nothing in common, other than their use of the Uber App in California at some point over the past six years," Uber said in the filing.
It said it licenses the Uber app or "lead generation platform" to "partners" who may be third-party businesses that employ or contract with drivers, and individuals that transport riders. "Drivers who use the Uber App may use it as much or as little as they want, and accept as many or as few ride requests as they want, whenever they want," Uber wrote.
Liss-Riordan said she was not surprised by Uber's arguments, including its claim that many drivers like working for Uber and the flexibility it provides. The law is clear that the relevant question is not whether people like the practice at issue but whether it is legal or not, and the mere fact that drivers can choose their hours does not make them independent contractors, she added.
Over a thousand drivers have contacted the law firm and are unhappy with how Uber has treated them and feel they have been taken advantage of, Liss-Riordan wrote in an email. "We look forward to bringing these arguments to the court in August," she added.
Uber has had its share of setbacks on this issue. In March, the court dismissed Uber's motion for summary judgment that the drivers were independent contractors. The California Labor Commission ruled last month that a driver of Uber was an employee and not a contractor, when driving for the company, and was hence entitled to reimbursement on certain expenses. The ride-hailing company said it had appealed the decision.