As written by the BBC some british drivers have accused Uber of having used an algorithm of “robotic dismissal” in order to fire them. The fired drivers have taken measures against Dutch Courts – where Uber stores its data – by contesting the article 22 of the GDPR breach for having used an algorithm in order to fire them.
Anton Ekker, the lawyer who represents the British drivers has declared “We know that Uber is using algorithms for its decisions about driver’s frauds and their exclusion from the app. This is happening everywhere”.
According to the company, the driver’s account has been deactivated not by an automated decision, but after the single cases revisión by human operators.
“Drivers in this case were excluded from the app only after the revision carried out by our expert’s team.” has explained the company’s spokesman.
The App Drivers & Couriers Union (Adcu), the association which has promoted the legal fight, affirms that since 2018 it were registered more than 1.000 cases in which drivers have been wrongly accused of fraudulent activity and they have immediately lost the possibility of working with the app without any appeal.
Ekker, the lawyer, has explained that “if it is an automated decision-making project, the GDPR requires that there should be legal bases in order to use this technology and that it should be given to the driver the possibility to oppose the automated decisión, and nothing has been done.”
As underlined by the experts, the dispute promoted by the british drivers, represent the most important legal case on the application of the article n. 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union 2016/679 GDPR and it could make a precedent for the European Court of Justice.
It will serve, in fact, to test the protections referred to in art. 22 of the Gdpr.
In particular, paragraph 1 of Art. 22 establishes a general prohibition to subject an individual to automated decision-making processes, including profiling, in cases where:
– the decision is based solely on automated data processing, therefore without any human involvement in the decision-making process;
– the decision produces legal effects or significantly affects the person concerned.
Paragraph 2 of Article 22 provides for exceptions to the prohibition: processing necessary to conclude or perform a contract, processing authorised by law or regulation, explicit consent of the data subject.
In any case, the data controller must ensure that it has implemented appropriate measures to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the data subject, in particular if the processing involves the use of particular data referred to in Article 9, paragraph 1 of the GDPR for which Article 9, paragraph 2, letter (a) or (g) applies (explicit consent of the data subject or processing necessary for reasons of substantial public interest).
Recital 71 goes on to explain that appropriate safeguards “should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his/her opinion, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision”.
Well, the Uber case is certainly destined to make case law on the subject. SOURCE: FEDERPRIVACY