[2025] FWC 2275
Citation: [2025] FWC 2275
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Rahul Kumar, an Uber Eats delivery driver, sought a remedy for unfair deactivation from the platform. He argued his deactivation was unfair. Uber contended the deactivation was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code, citing a low customer satisfaction rating. The Fair Work Commission held hearings on 21 and 28 July 2025, with both Kumar and an Uber representative providing evidence.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Rahul Kumar was protected from unfair deactivation. However, the Commission was not satisfied that Uber’s deactivation of Kumar was consistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The application was dismissed, meaning Kumar did not receive the remedy he sought, but the Commission found the deactivation itself was not necessarily unfair, just not in accordance with the Code.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms must strictly adhere to the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code when deactivating workers. This includes providing deactivation warnings, opportunities for response, and following the prescribed process. Failure to do so, even if the reason for deactivation is legitimate, can lead to legal challenges.
What it means for employees
Employees working through digital labour platforms have protections against unfair deactivation. If deactivated, employees should review the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code and seek assistance if they believe the process was not followed correctly. They are protected from unfair deactivation, but this does not guarantee reinstatement.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwc2275.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections