Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Uber Technologies, Inc. and Maplebear Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance. The majority held that the ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct and, alternatively, that any compelled commercial speech survives the applicable scrutiny under Zauderer. The court also held that the ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague; Judge Bennett partially dissented regarding the applicable First Amendment standard and preliminary-injunction analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance regulates protected speech or merely regulates nonexpressive conduct, and, alternatively, whether its requirements satisfy the applicable First Amendment standard for compelled commercial speech.
- Whether the Ordinance's requirement that deactivation policies be reasonably related to safe and efficient operations is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- The Ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct—the unwarranted deactivation of app-based worker accounts—and any resulting burden on speech is incidental, so the Ordinance does not trigger First Amendment scrutiny as a speech regulation.
- Alternatively, if the Ordinance regulates speech, the speech is commercial speech related to temporary employment, and the challenged disclosure requirement satisfies the applicable Zauderer standard.
- The Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because it gives a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what deactivation grounds are reasonably related to safety and efficiency and provides sufficient standards against arbitrary enforcement.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.
Key quotations
“The Ordinance governs nonexpressive conduct. Any burden on speech is incidental.” (19)
“The Ordinance provides fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence as to what grounds for deactivation are reasonably related to safety and efficiency.” (28)
“Because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the preliminary injunction.” (29)
Factual background
Seattle enacted Ordinance 126878, the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, regulating network companies that connect app-based workers with customers for temporary work. The Ordinance requires covered companies to provide workers written deactivation policies and requires those policies to be reasonably related to safe and efficient operations, while prohibiting unwarranted deactivations. Uber, Portier, and Instacart challenged the speech and vagueness provisions, asserting that the Ordinance compelled constitutionally protected speech and failed to provide adequate standards for deactivation policies.
Procedural history
Uber filed an action challenging the Ordinance under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and sought emergency injunctive relief. The district court denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, concluding that the Ordinance regulated nonexpressive conduct, was not unconstitutionally vague, and that plaintiffs had not established the preliminary-injunction factors. Uber and Instacart appealed; the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and affirmed.