> The court found that he and other drivers involved in the case, based in the UK and Portugal, had the right to more information about the way automated decisi

> The court found that he and other drivers involved in the case, based in the UK and Portugal, had the right to more information about the way automated decisions were made about them. > Just before the case came to court, Uber apologised and acknowledged it had made a mistake. So Uber tried to stop the court from making a ruling which would bind it by apologizing to the driver. Then when the court still goes on to make a ruling, Uber complains, and seeks to limit application of the ruling: > An Uber spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that the court did not recognise the robust processes we have in place, including meaningful human review, when making a decision to deactivate a driver’s account due to suspected fraud. > “These rulings only relate to a few specific drivers from the UK that were deactivated in the period between 2018 and 2020 in relation to very specific circumstances.” This is why settlements are not always the societally best outcome of lawsuits. And I don't get how Uber is trying to limit it to UK drivers when the court decision also applied to Portugal drivers.