Background
Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance regulates network companies that connect customers with app-based delivery workers. Among other requirements, it directs companies to give workers written notice of their deactivation policies and requires those policies to be reasonably related to safe and efficient operations. The ordinance also identifies examples of impermissible policies, including deactivation based solely on aggregate customer ratings.
Uber Technologies, its subsidiary Portier, and Maplebear, which does business as Instacart, challenged the ordinance on First Amendment and vagueness grounds. The district court denied their request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and the companies appealed. A stipulated stay pending final resolution of the appeals was in place when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision.
The panel withdrew its March 4, 2026 opinion and dissent, denied the pending rehearing-en-banc petition as moot, and issued a superseding amended opinion and partial dissent.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction. Assuming without deciding that the challenged provisions regulate speech, the majority held that the speech is commercial because it concerns the terms under which app-based workers may use the companies’ platforms to obtain work. Applying the commercial-disclosure framework from Zauderer, the court concluded that the written-policy requirement is reasonably related to Seattle’s substantial interests in worker and public safety, calls for factual and noncontroversial information, and is not unduly burdensome.
The majority also rejected the challenge to the requirement that deactivation policies be reasonably related to safe and efficient operations. It reasoned that the provision regulates, at most, commercial speech concerning activity Seattle has designated unlawful—unwarranted account deactivations—and would survive even the more demanding Central Hudson framework urged by the companies.
The court further held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague. The familiar reasonableness standard, read together with the ordinance’s examples and exceptions, gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of which grounds for deactivation are related to safety and efficiency. Because the companies failed to show likely success on either constitutional claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying preliminary relief.
Key Takeaways
- The panel treated required communications about deactivation standards as commercial speech tied to the working relationship between platform companies and app-based workers.
- The written disclosure requirement survived Zauderer review because it requires factual policy information, advances substantial governmental interests, and can be satisfied without an undue burden.
- The ordinance’s use of “reasonably related,” supplemented by listed examples and safety exceptions, provided sufficient notice to defeat the vagueness challenge.
- Judge Bennett agreed that the ordinance is not vague but dissented from the First Amendment analysis, concluding that it compels speech and that the case should be remanded for further consideration under Zauderer and the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes substantial municipal authority to require gig-economy platforms to disclose and structure their worker-deactivation policies without necessarily violating the First Amendment. It also distinguishes internal workplace disclosures concerning commercial relationships from compelled reports addressing controversial public issues.
The ruling resolved only the appeal from the denial of preliminary relief; it did not finally adjudicate the underlying lawsuit. Although the panel affirmed that denial, the opinion noted that a stipulated stay pending final resolution of the appeals was then in place and did not itself establish that immediate enforcement would begin.