French Supreme Court’s ruling on Uber drivers: A turning point in platform workers’ misclassification claims?

At a glance

• France’s Supreme Court ruled Uber drivers are independent contractors, rejecting claims of employment status despite prior decisions suggesting a subordinate relationship under Uber’s operational structure.
• The Court found no legal subordination, citing drivers’ autonomy in choosing work hours, accepting rides, and setting routes—key indicators against an employment contract under French law.
• Uber’s revised framework, including flexible reconnection and fare-setting mechanisms, was deemed compatible with self-employment principles, reinforcing the platform’s shift away from employer-like control.
• Despite this ruling, France must align with the EU Platform Work Directive by December 2026, which may challenge current interpretations by presuming employment where platform control is evident.

On 9 July 2025, the Cour de cassation (no. 24.13.513), France’s Supreme Court, issued a much-anticipated decision concerning the legal misclassification claims of Uber drivers and the nature of their relationship with the platform.

This ruling comes amid increasing legal scrutiny over gig economy practices and follows a series of decisions recognising an employment relationship between Uber and its drivers—most notably the Court’s rulings of 25 January 2023 (no. 21-11.273) and 5 March 2025 (no. 23-18.430), which acknowledged the existence of a subordinate relationship based on the operational structure of Uber’s platform.

However, in a shift from these precedents, the 9 July 2025 ruling denied the existence of a salaried employment contract, holding that Uber drivers continue to operate as independent contractors. This outcome represents both a consolidation of Uber’s updated business model and a nuanced application of legal principles governing employment classification.

Legal Framework: Subordination as the cornerstone of employment status

The Court began by recalling the applicable legal framework, particularly Article L. 8221-6 of the French Labour Code, which creates a presumption of independent status for individuals registered with a professional or trade registry. Nevertheless, this presumption can be overturned if it is shown that the person performs services under conditions placing them in permanent legal subordination to a principal.

Under French law, a salaried employment contract is established when three cumulative criteria are met:

• A task or service is rendered.
• Remuneration is paid.
• A relationship of legal subordination exists, defined as work performed under the authority of an employer who holds the power to issue directives, monitor performance, and impose sanctions.

Although Article L. 7342-9 of the Labour Code—introduced by the LOM (Mobility Orientation Law) of 2019—outlines the governance of platform work through non-binding charters, the Cour de cassation notably did not rely on this provision. It rather reaffirmed the primacy of the traditional 'body of evidence' (faisceau d’indices) approach to assess whether the subordination condition is met.

Methodology: The body of evidence in practice

The Court’s second step was to apply this methodology to the relationship between Uber and its drivers. Acknowledging that Uber’s platform constitutes an 'organized service', the Court clarified that such a service alone is insufficient to establish subordination. The jurisprudence requires additional indicators, such as control, supervision, and sanctioning powers.

Key findings by the Court include:

• Autonomy of the drivers: Uber drivers are not bound by exclusivity or non-compete clauses and are free to work for competing platforms or find their own clients. Uber's 'favorite driver' feature was noted as a tool enabling drivers to build personal clientele.
• Freedom of connection: Drivers can connect and disconnect from the app at will. The app does not impose working hours, and drivers’ activity reports show fluctuations in engagement—indicating a lack of obligation to work regularly or exclusively.
• Acceptance and execution of rides: Drivers have full discretion to accept or reject ride requests. Moreover, they independently determine the route, ensuring freedom in the performance of their service.
• Evolving sanction system: While past decisions pointed to Uber’s automatic disconnection after repeated refusals as evidence of employer-like sanctions, the Court emphasised that this mechanism has since been revised. Now, drivers can reconnect instantly, or receive a delayed reconnection prompt—thus diminishing Uber’s control over their activity.
• Remuneration practices: Uber sets a maximum fare, yet the drivers retain flexibility within this pricing model. Importantly, the Court found that the fare cap alone does not amount to employer control, particularly in light of the regulatory framework introduced by Article L. 7341-1 of the Labor Code, which structures non-salaried platform relationships.

After a comprehensive assessment, the Cour de cassation concluded that the Uber drivers’ working conditions do not meet the threshold for a subordinate relationship, and hence no employment contract exists between Uber and the drivers.

This July 2025 ruling carries significant implications:

• It validates Uber’s updated contractual framework, which was restructured after the 2019 Mobility Orientation Law and appears more aligned with principles of autonomy and self-employment.
• It reinforces the fact-based nature of judicial review: the Cour de cassation signaled that past rulings do not automatically dictate outcomes, and that each case requires a granular review of contractual and operational realities.

However, this legal stance may soon be challenged by the transposition of the EU Platform Work Directive, adopted in December 2024. This directive introduces a presumption of employment where platform control is demonstrated and sets the deadline for transposition of 2 December 2026. France, like other Member States, must adjust its national law accordingly.

Whether the French courts will adapt their reasoning to conform with the Directive’s pro-employee orientation remains to be seen. For now, the 9  July 2025 decision provides a compelling benchmark for how gig platforms may structure relationships to safeguard independent contractor status—but the legal landscape is far from settled.