Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
Uber's systems automatically use your driving data, ratings, and other metrics to make decisions about whether and how you can use the platform, potentially without a human reviewing your specific case.
This analysis describes what Uber's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
The clause establishes that platform access and earnings determinations are subject to automated decision-making processes rather than human review, which means these outcomes are generated through algorithmic systems that process the specified data categories.
Interpretive note: The exact scope of automated decisions covered and the mechanisms for human review are not fully specified in the document text provided, creating some ambiguity about what rights are practically available.
This provision means an algorithm, rather than a human reviewer, may determine whether your account is restricted or your access to rides is limited based on collected behavioral data, which directly affects your ability to earn income through Uber.
How other platforms handle this
We use automated decision-making to help improve our products and services to you. For example, we may use automated technologies to send you job alert emails regarding roles that may be of interest to you based upon your search criteria...
Object to an automated decision-making (including profiling) in certain circumstances.
Request a review of decisions made solely based on automated processing of personal data.
Monitoring
Uber has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 20 platforms.
"Uber uses personal data to make automated decisions that affect drivers' access to the platform and earnings, including decisions based on telematics data, ratings, and other performance indicators collected through the app.Excerpt from Uber's Privacy Notice (Drivers and Delivery People)
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Automated decision-making provisions engage GDPR Article 22 for EU/EEA drivers, which grants individuals the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions that produce significant legal or similarly significant effects, including the right to obtain human intervention and contest the decision. Several US states including California under CPRA are developing analogous automated decision-making regulations. (2) GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High for EU operations. Uber must identify which automated decisions qualify as Article 22 decisions, implement meaningful human review mechanisms, and provide intelligible explanations to affected drivers. Failure to do so creates regulatory exposure with EU data protection authorities. (3) JURISDICTION FLAGS: EU/EEA creates the highest current regulatory exposure given GDPR Article 22's explicit requirements. California's CPRA automated decision-making regulations, once fully in force, will create similar obligations for California-based drivers. UK GDPR imposes equivalent requirements for UK drivers. (4) CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: If automated decision systems are built on or use third-party AI/ML platforms, vendor agreements should address explainability, auditability, and the ability to implement human review processes as required by applicable law. (5) COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Compliance teams should map which specific platform decisions (account suspension, ride access limits, earnings adjustments) are fully automated versus human-reviewed, document the logic and data inputs used, and ensure that drivers in GDPR-covered jurisdictions can effectively exercise their Article 22 rights through a disclosed and accessible process.
Regulatory citations, enforcement risk, and due diligence action items.
How Meta, TikTok, and Supabase restructured governance language across documents, jurisdictions, and consent frameworks through incremental document updates.
How 10 AI platforms describe the use of user data for model training, improvement, and development, based on archived governance provisions.
Provision-level monitoring, governance timelines, and regulatory mapping built from archived source documents and historical version tracking.
The clause establishes that platform access and earnings determinations are subject to automated decision-making processes rather than human review, which means these outcomes are generated through algorithmic systems that process the specified data categories.
This provision means an algorithm, rather than a human reviewer, may determine whether your account is restricted or your access to rides is limited based on collected behavioral data, which directly affects your ability to earn income through Uber.
ConductAtlas has identified this type of provision across 222 platforms. See the full comparison.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Uber.