Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe Ninth Circuit rejected Uber and Instacart’s appeal on March 4, 2026, leaving in place a lower court’s refusal to block Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance while the case proceeds. The ruling concerns covered app-based workers, including delivery workers—not Uber rideshare drivers generally—and is not a final decision on every claim in the lawsuit.
What happened in the appeal?
Uber Technologies and its subsidiary Portier, along with Maplebear Inc. (the company doing business as Instacart), asked the Ninth Circuit to block enforcement of Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance while their lawsuit continued. Instacart had intervened in the district court case. The consolidated appeals were No. 25-228 for Uber and Portier and No. 25-231 for Maplebear.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $100.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Uber Eats Physical Gift Card | $100.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Uber eGift Card | $15.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Uber Eats Physical Gift Card | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
On March 4, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. In practical terms, the companies did not obtain an appellate order suspending the law at this stage. The panel did not resolve every underlying claim or issue a final merits judgment. The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton; Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett dissented in part.
Which workers and law does the case involve?
Seattle enacted Ordinance 126878 in 2023, adding chapter 8.40 to the Seattle Municipal Code. It applies to covered “network companies” that use apps to connect workers with customers for temporary services, including delivery. The Ninth Circuit said rideshare drivers are excluded from the worker categories relevant to this ordinance, so the case should not be read as a ruling on protections for every Uber driver.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
- This card is redeemable via the Uber app within the U.S. in cities where Uber is available.
- Redemption: Mobile App
- No returns and no refunds on gift cards.
This is also distinct from Seattle’s earlier Transportation Network Company Driver Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which applied to rideshare companies and expired at the end of 2022 after state legislation. The current case concerns the 2023 app-based worker law.
What protections does Seattle’s ordinance provide?
Clear written deactivation policies
Covered companies must provide workers with written deactivation policies that identify potential violations clearly enough for workers to understand what conduct could lead to deactivation and how to avoid violating the rules. The policies must be reasonably related to the company’s safe and efficient operations.
Rank #2
- This card is redeemable via the Uber app within the U.S. in cities where Uber is available.
- Redemption: Mobile App
- No returns and no refunds on gift cards.
The ordinance identifies examples of rules it considers not reasonably related to those operations, including deactivation based solely on aggregate customer-rating metrics. It also restricts deactivation based on background checks, consumer reports, driver records, or traffic infractions, except in cases of egregious misconduct or where another law requires it.
Process, notice, and a way to challenge deactivation
Before most deactivations, companies must follow specified procedures. Workers are entitled to notice and access to records supporting a deactivation, as well as an internal process to challenge it. The ordinance permits immediate deactivation in specified situations, including where legally required or where egregious misconduct is involved.
Recommended Free Tools
Rank #3
- This card is redeemable via the Uber or Uber Eats app within the U.S. in cities where Uber or Uber Eats is available.
- Redemption: Mobile App
- No returns and no refunds on gift cards.
Seattle says a worker may bring a private lawsuit after the company gives its initial response to a challenge, or 14 days after submitting the challenge if the company has not responded. See the Seattle Office of Labor Standards’ ordinance page for the city’s description of these rights.
Why did the Ninth Circuit reject the companies’ arguments?
First Amendment challenge
Uber and Instacart argued that requiring written deactivation policies compelled them to speak in violation of the First Amendment. The majority reasoned that the ordinance principally regulates nonexpressive conduct—the deactivation of worker accounts—and that any effect on speech is incidental. It also said that, even if the policy requirements involve speech, they concern commercial speech and satisfy the applicable standard.
Rank #4
- This card is redeemable via the Uber app within the U.S. in cities where Uber is available.
- Redemption: Mobile App
- No returns and no refunds on gift cards.
The companies also argued that the ordinance’s “reasonably related” standard was unconstitutionally vague. The majority held that it gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of the kinds of deactivation grounds reasonably related to safety and efficiency. On those grounds, the panel concluded the companies were unlikely to succeed on the merits at the preliminary-injunction stage and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of relief. The appeal addressed these First Amendment and vagueness arguments; an associational-rights claim was not argued on appeal.
Judge Bennett’s partial dissent
Judge Bennett agreed that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, but disagreed with the majority on compelled speech. He viewed drafting and publishing a deactivation policy as speech and would have sent the case back for the district court to reassess the preliminary-injunction factors under intermediate scrutiny and in light of current facts. That was a partial dissent, not the panel’s holding.
Best Value
- Order from hundreds of local restaurants
- Choose from full menus
- Track delivery
- Cashless payment
- This card is redeemable via the Uber or Uber Eats app within the U.S. in cities where Uber or Uber Eats is available.
What does the ruling mean for workers and companies?
The appellate ruling leaves the denial of preliminary relief in place; it does not mean the lawsuit is over or that the court has finally decided every legal question. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion and Seattle’s March 6, 2026 announcement establish the appeal’s disposition, but do not establish subsequent mandate status, later district-court proceedings, or a final resolution of all claims.
Seattle’s Office of Labor Standards says its enforcement authority from January 1, 2025 through May 31, 2027 covers limited procedural requirements. That description is not the whole enforcement framework: the city also identifies workers’ private lawsuit rights. Workers should consult the ordinance and current city guidance for the procedure that applies to their situation.
The City characterized the ordinance as “the first of its kind in the country” in its March 6, 2026 announcement. That is the City’s description, not a finding by the Ninth Circuit.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
