Background
Uber Technologies, Inc. and Maplebear Inc., doing business as Instacart, challenged Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which prohibits unwarranted deactivations of app-based workers’ accounts. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the ordinance compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague. The district court denied the motion, finding the ordinance regulated conduct and was not void for vagueness.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct—the unwarranted deactivation of worker accounts—and any burden on speech is incidental. Alternatively, the court determined that if the ordinance regulates speech, it is commercial speech subject to the Zauderer test. The court found the requirement to inform workers of deactivation policies is reasonably related to Seattle’s goal of keeping workers informed and employed. The court also held that the requirement for policies to be reasonably related to safe and efficient operations is not an impermissible regulation of speech. Finally, the court concluded the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence.
The dissent
While he agreed with the majority’s alternative reasoning that the speech at issue is commercial speech subject to intermediate scrutiny, Plaintiffs raised serious questions going to the merits.
Judge Bennett
What it means going forward
The decision upholds Seattle’s ability to enforce its ordinance requiring network companies to inform app-based workers of deactivation policies and to ensure those policies are reasonably related to safe and efficient operations.