[2025] FWC 3338
Citation: [2025] FWC 3338
What happened
the Applicant, an Uber driver, sought a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009 after Uber deactivated his account. Uber received five complaints against the Applicant, which he denies. Uber deactivated his account following the third complaint, alleging discriminatory comments. the Applicant claims the complaints are false and that Uber did not adequately investigate them. He commenced working for Uber around March 2021. Uber says it conducted reviews of users and deactivated accounts for violations of community guidelines.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found the Applicant’s deactivation was unfair and inconsistent with the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code. The Commissioner noted the Applicant was a credible witness and Uber’s evidence was of low probative value. Uber did not provide the Applicant with copies of the complaints or details about them before his deactivation. The Commission ordered Uber to reactivate the Applicant’s account. The decision was based on Uber’s failure to comply with the Deactivation Code.
What it means for employers
Employers using digital labour platforms must adhere to the Digital Labour Platform Deactivation Code when deactivating workers. This includes providing clear information about complaints and allowing workers to respond to allegations. Failure to do so can result in an order to reactivate an account and potential further legal action.
What it means for employees
Employees on digital labour platforms have protections against unfair deactivation. If deactivated, workers can seek a remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. It is important to maintain records and respond to any allegations made against you.
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/2025fwc3338.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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →