Breaking #gigeconomy news: French @Courdecassation rules that @Uber drivers are employees. Full English translation of the decision available here - courdecassation.fr/IMG/20200304_a… . (h/t @GrafvLuxemburg _ 
The Court starts with a strong assertion of the primacy of facts: compliance with regulatory regimes / contractual documentation / &c can be rebutted if there is a relationship of permanent legal subordination (this has been a key debate in the UK litigation, too)
The case law on point is well-established: "rel'p of legal subordination is characterised by the performance of a job under the authority of an ER who has the power to give orders and instructions, to oversee performance thereof, and to sanction the subordinate for any breaches."
Unilateral determination of terms & conditions is key
Any notion of 'micro-entrepreneurship' is thoroughly debunked - no free decisions about organising work, no proprietary client base, no freedom to determine fares or set terms and conditions
*** But what about the flexiblity to choose when to work? Irrelevant, at least during those periods where work is actually done: "the fact of being able to choose one’s working days and working hours does not exclude per se a subordinated working relationship" ***
Clear recognition that flexibility in principle is very different from flexibility in reality: e.g. re route choices, threat of potential sanctions for 'inefficient routes' means that drivers 'ha[ve] no freedom of choice'
Similarly on deactivation & destination choice: detailed analysis of @Uber 's #algorithmicmanagement makes it clear that drivers cannot enjoy the genuine freedoms of entrepreneurship
Variations across the business model (e.g. re cancellation rates) don't matter - what's crucial is the overarching power to sanction, however it might be exercised in different versions of the app or localities
[The Claimant] "held a fictitious status as an independent worker ... Uber BV sent him instructions, supervised performance and exercised the power to sanction" - the Court of Appeal's finding of employment status is upheld in full.
So - what to make of this? Technically, decision is ltd to French law. But in-depth analysis of @Uber 's ops translates internationally - esp given the Court's careful emphasis on functional understanding of control, irrespective of small and frequent variations
Those key elements also chime closely with the analysis of AG Szpunar @EUCourtPress when the Court of Justice was faced with the question of @Uber's legal classification:
As I argue in @HumansAsService , whilst there are instances of genuine #entrepreneurship in the #gigeconomy, that narrative is hard to sustain across the industry: "many PFs business models are explicitly premised on tight control over their workforce"
Introduction available freely here - papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… ; or check out global.oup.com/academic/produ… . And @Dalloz are not far off from publishing the French translation!
What does this mean for @Uber 's upcoming appeal to the @UKSupremeCourt? (1) recognition that ET's decision of the facts spot-on, (2) regulatory regimes irrelevant per se if significant employer control, (3) choice to log-on/off irrelevant for Q of control whilst working
That's it from me for now - for further coverage, check out @Melissahei of @POLITICOEurope , @VPietrogiovanni * @GrafvLuxemburg
