Judge Blocks NYC Law Requiring Uber, Lyft to Give Drivers Deactivation Notice

The judge deemed Local Law 52 unconstitutional, saying it interferes with platform safety and benefits only a small number of drivers.
Judge Blocks NYC Law Requiring Uber, Lyft to Give Drivers Deactivation Notice
A sign marks a rendezvous location for Lyft and Uber users at San Diego State University in San Diego, Calif., on May 13, 2020. Mike Blake/Reuters
Mary Prenon
Mary Prenon
Freelance Reporter
|Updated:
0:00

Both Uber and Lyft ride-sharing firms were the victors in a lawsuit to halt a New York City law that would have required them to provide at least two weeks’ notice and “just cause” before deactivating their drivers.

On July 21, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods granted both plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Local Law 52. The legislation, enacted by the New York City Council on Jan. 29, was expected to become effective on July 28.

Local Law 52 was intended to amend the city’s administrative code to extend existing workplace protection to drivers of high-volume-for-hire services, requiring that, “except in specified circumstances, a service must provide a driver with advance notice of an impending deactivation fourteen days before it takes effect,” according to a court document. Further, the law provides that these drivers have the opportunity to submit evidence, file a complaint, or bring a private action when notified about a proposed deactivation.

The only exemption for an advanced notice was for “egregious misconduct, account sharing, or a pattern of repeated fraudulent behavior,” the document says. However, in those instances, Local Law 52 still requires written notice within five days of deactivation.

In rendering his decision, Judge Woods deemed Local Law 52 unconstitutional, stating that it interferes with the companies’ right to ensure safety on their platforms and benefits just a small fraction of drivers. He also noted that the law would have deprived both Uber and Lyft of their contractual rights with their drivers.

“We’re pleased the court recognized the importance of preserving our ability to exercise discretion to protect the safety and integrity of our platform,” an Uber spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email. “The opinion underscores that driver fairness and rider safety can and must go hand in hand.”

Lyft also welcomed the court decision in an email statement to The Epoch Times. “We’re pleased the court recognized the serious safety concerns at the heart of this challenge,” a Lyft spokesperson said. “Lyft’s ability to protect riders is a top priority. We now look forward to making our full case.”

Local Law 52 also would have allowed drivers to challenge deactivations dating back as far as seven years ago. In a June blog, Lyft argued that imposing liability for lawful conduct from 2019 would be “fundamentally unfair.”

“Applying standards retroactively doesn’t make the platform safer; it undermines the processes designed to protect riders, drivers, and the public,” the blog says.

While the New York City legislation was designed to prevent any deactivations based on discriminatory complaints and subsequent loss of income, the court found that drivers who follow the platforms’ rules benefit from rider confidence in the “safety and integrity of those services.” It further states that reducing rider confidence could reduce demand, affecting earning opportunities for everyone.

Uber launched its platform in New York City in 2011, and Lyft began operating in the city in 2014. The court document notes that nearly 87,000 Uber and Lyft drivers completed more than 22 million trips in the city in March 2026 alone.

Uber stated that it has deactivated more than 12,000 drivers since 2019, the document says. Safety concerns accounted for more than half of the company’s New York City deactivations in 2025. These incidents included dangerous or intoxicated driving, as well as physical or sexual assault. In the litigation, Uber argued that permitting a driver to remain on the platform after a deactivation decision could expose additional riders to potential harm.

Similarly, Lyft’s Terms of Service prohibit drivers from engaging in conduct such as stalking, harassment, making threats, carrying weapons, fraud, discrimination, and sexual harassment, among other activities, the court document noted.

Deactivated drivers from both Uber and Lyft can appeal those decisions to their respective companies, according to the document.

Uber was founded in 2009 in San Francisco and has grown into an international firm providing ride-sharing, bikes, scooters, and public transportation.

Founded in 2012 in San Francisco, Lyft is a global platform offering rideshares, taxis, private hire vehicles, and executive chauffeur services. The firm has millions of drivers worldwide.

Google LogoMark Us Preferred on Google
Mary Prenon
Mary Prenon
Freelance Reporter
Mary T. Prenon covers real estate and business. She has been a writer and reporter for over 25 years with various print and broadcast media in New York.