Uber Technologies filed suit late on Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan to prevent New York City from enforcing a newly enacted ordinance that the company says would unlawfully constrain its ability to remove drivers from its platform. The company contends the measure would require it to keep drivers it does not want, including those who engage in dangerous or inappropriate conduct.
In its complaint, Uber argues Local Law 52 of 2026 - which broadly bars large ride-sharing companies from dismissing drivers except for a "bona fide economic reason" or "just cause" - would shield drivers accused of dangerous, threatening or otherwise improper behavior. The company said the statute would compromise public safety and cause "immediate and irreparable harm" by damaging its reputation and goodwill.
Uber is asserting that the law violates both its First Amendment free-speech protections and due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as similar guarantees under New York's state constitution. The company is seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the ordinance plus costs.
A spokesperson for New York City's law department said on Wednesday that the office is reviewing the complaint.
Local Law 52, passed by the City Council in January by a 46-5 vote, would allow dismissals for account sharing, fraud and certain types of severe misconduct, identified in the statute as "egregious misconduct" such as violence, sexual harassment or assault, and discrimination. The law is scheduled to take effect on July 28.
Uber criticized several specific provisions. It said the requirement to give drivers 14 days' notice before deactivation would create an opportunity for retaliation against passengers and could force the company to reinstate drivers going back to 2019 who did not previously receive such notice. Uber also argued the measure infringes passenger privacy by requiring that alleged abuse reports be disclosed to the accused drivers.
Further, the complaint accuses New York City of fostering what Uber characterizes as "kangaroo" proceedings that would compel judges, arbitrators and officials at the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection to start from the presumption that deactivations are unjust and shift the evidentiary burden onto Uber to justify removals.
In a company statement included in the filing, Uber said: "We are suing New York City to block a reckless new law that seeks to strip our ability to immediately remove potentially dangerous drivers and fraudsters from our platform, creating an immediate threat to public safety."
The filing also notes ongoing litigation: as of June 1, Uber was facing 3,571 lawsuits consolidated in federal court in San Francisco that allege drivers engaged in sexual misconduct. Lyft did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether it would take legal action in response to the New York law.
Context and implications
The lawsuit places Uber at the center of a legal clash with municipal regulators over how ride-hailing platforms handle driver discipline and safety. The case will test the balance between city authority to regulate services operating within its borders and the companies' assertions of constitutional protections and operational discretion.