Who's Involved?

Like ACLU v. Aon, there's no single named plaintiff here whose story anchors the case the way Derek Mobley's does for Mobley v. Workday - this was brought by a data-rights nonprofit and a drivers' union, on behalf of a group of drivers.

Worker Info Exchange (WIE)

Worker Info Exchange is a UK-based nonprofit that helps gig and platform workers use their data rights under the GDPR collectively, rather than one at a time. It was founded by James Farrar, who also brought - and won, at the UK Supreme Court - the landmark Uber BV v. Aslam case establishing that certain Uber drivers in the UK are "workers" entitled to minimum wage and other protections. WIE's basic idea is that gig workers can only bargain effectively, or catch unfair automated management, if they can see the data platforms hold on them - so it organizes drivers to request that data together and, where platforms refuse, brings litigation like this case. (source: Worker Info Exchange's own site)

The App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU)

The ADCU is a UK trade union representing private-hire drivers and delivery couriers - people who work through apps like Uber, Ola, and various delivery platforms. James Farrar is also the ADCU's General Secretary. The union organized the drivers whose claims are at the center of this case and worked alongside Worker Info Exchange to bring it. (source: Worker Info Exchange's writeup of the Court of Appeal ruling)

The drivers

The Court of Appeal's April 2023 ruling actually covered three linked cases, with different drivers as claimants in each: four Uber drivers disputing account terminations for alleged "fraudulent activity" (the "robo-firing" case), six Uber drivers seeking fuller access to their personal data, and three Ola drivers seeking the same from Ola. Reporting describes the group as UK-based ADCU members, plus at least one driver based in Portugal in the robo-firing case. None of the individual drivers' names have been made public in the sources we reviewed - which is consistent with how WIE and the ADCU have described the cases throughout. (source: TechCrunch)

Uber

Uber Technologies, Inc. is the US-based ride-hailing company; the Dutch proceedings were brought against Uber's relevant European entities, which is why Amsterdam - where Uber's European operations are based - had jurisdiction. Uber was the defendant in both the robo-firing case and the separate Uber data-access case. (source: Worker Info Exchange)

Ola Cabs

Ola is a ride-hailing company headquartered in India; the Dutch case was brought against its Netherlands entity, Ola Netherlands B.V., which is why it was sued alongside Uber in the same Amsterdam courts rather than in India. Ola was the defendant in the separate data-access case brought by three drivers, and in the District Court's earlier 2021 ruling on algorithmic pay deductions. (source: WageIndicator Foundation case summary)

For what's actually happened in this matter so far, see the timeline.