Subject: Concern About Restrictive Practices and Supply Chain Failure in the Rideshare Industry
Dear Competition and Markets Authority,
I am writing to raise concerns about the structure and functioning of the UK rideshare market. I believe that one of the practices – banning rideshare drivers from using helper apps – contributes to a failing market, enabled by an imbalance of power, lack of transparency, and potential breaches of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).
While I will concentrate on Uber in this complaint, the issue is an industry-wide issue and most rideshare and food delivery platforms have the same or similar terms that prevent drivers from using apps to help determine the true cost of a job.
When rideshare companies first arrived in the UK, the usual tariff and commission model applied. This is where a company such as Uber would have a per-mile or per-minute charge, which is paid by the rider. Uber would then take a commission (approx 25%), and the remainder was paid to the driver. Because there was a set payment per mile, drivers could be confident that the price they were paid was profitable for each job.
Today, most rideshare platforms use a model of ‘Upfront pricing’. This is where a job is shown with the mileage and price. Drivers have less than 6 seconds in which to perform some mental mathematics to determine if the job is financially viable. The price offered for a job bears no resemblance to its miles. For example, you could have one job come through which pays 97p a mile, and the next job that comes through pays £3.00 a mile.
This has led to the rise of driver helper apps. These apps automatically do the calculations and show the value of the job per mile and per hour. This quickly allows a driver to see if a job is paying a sustainable rate.
Key issues I wish to highlight:
- Lack of pricing transparency: Drivers have no input on fare prices or commission structures. In fact, Uber has taken steps to try and hide the value of jobs in the way the presents jobs on screen. An example of this is when Uber was required to pay holiday pay to its drivers. For the first few months, they made weekly payments to drivers. They then changed the way that holiday pay was paid by including it in every job. This gave an artificially inflated value to each job, and it is thought that Uber used this opportunity to reduce driver pay while hiding it behind the ‘increase’ caused by the holiday pay addition to the job price.
Drivers require helper apps to be able to see simply the price of a job on a per-mile basis or a per-minute basis. This allows them to work out the profitability of a job, as most drivers price their costs on a per-mile basis.
- Unfair contract terms: Uber’s terms are presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, with frequent unilateral updates and no room for negotiation. These may fall foul of UCTA, as they heavily favour Uber and leave drivers with little to no option to improve their work efficiency. Uber and other rideshare platforms spend millions of pounds on worker psychologists, computer algorithms and AI to get drivers to work at minimum pay rates; however, they expect drivers not to use any technology in determining the viability of a job. While Uber can work with the most advanced AI, they demand drivers work in a pre-computer age environment, performing complex mental arithmetic, while talking to customers, reading the satnav and staying aware of the roads while driving – all in 6 seconds or less.
- Common Law Restrictive Convenant breaches: Rideshare companies that prevent, penalise or deactivate drivers using helper apps are in breach of common law on restrictive covenants. Bans on helper apps go further than reasonably necessary to protect the other party’s legitimate interests. Details on the relevant clause in Uber’s driver terms and conditions are given below, but all rideshare and delivery companies have the same or similar clauses to stop and discourage use of helper apps.
The current situation in Uber is unclear about the use of helper apps. This prevents many drivers from taking advantage of apps that can boost their driving, reduce their costs and help ensure they earn minimum wages while on shift. Uber currently only guarantee national minimum wage when driving on a job and takes no account of expenses or time while returning from a job or while waiting for a job. Helper apps help drivers take jobs that are profitable for their full working hours.
Currently, if you Google ‘Can I use third-party apps with Uber?’ you are sent to an Uber help page – https://help.uber.com/en-GB/driving-and-delivering/article/third-party-applications?nodeId=316b65b9-15e4-40be-a68f-a3e1c0904acf – this clearly states you can use third-party apps on Uber.
However, there are claims that Uber driver terms and conditions state third-party apps can not be used. After deep searching Uber for terms and conditions, this appears to be the clause in question:
18:2 (c) launch or cause to launch any programmes or scripts for the purpose of scraping, indexing, surveying, or otherwise data mining any part of Uber’s mobile applications and/or websites or data.
The argument that I believe the Competitions and Markets Authority needs to consider is;
a) Is this clause an abuse of power, creating an unacceptable imbalance between Uber and its driver supply chain, preventing innovation by drivers?
b) Is this a restrictive covenant that goes beyond the needs of Uber to protect its legitimate interests?
International actions
A helper app in Brazil called GigU has recently won a court case against Uber over its use by drivers.
Uber claimed that the app breached its terms and conditions by scraping confidential data from its app. GigU argued that the data was already being presented to the driver, its app used screen reader capabilities of the phone (from accessibility functions for disabled people) to read the data and then display the data in a more usable form to the driver – a per-mile and per-hour figure. The Brazilian court ruled in GigU favour, confirming that the app did not interfere with the Uber app or mined it for confidential data.
Relevance to Competition and Markets Authority Remit
While I have highlighted issues with the supply chain with Uber, this issue is relevant to the rideshare and food delivery industry as a whole.
I note the speech by Juliette Enser, Executive Director for Competition Enforcement, delivered at CompLaw: Advanced EU, London on 15th May 2025. In that speech, she highlighted that’ Labour markets are key to a well-functioning economy and, in taking cases in this area, we aim to ensure that workers are able to obtain a fair value for their work but also that businesses can find and hire workers at the right price.’
I believe that the CMA should take action on contract terms, implied or actual, that prevent drivers from innovating should be declared unlawful under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).
There are also other issues that need to be considered, such as the benefits to road safety when using helper apps, and for those apps that can automate actions such as accepting or denying work can greatly benefit drivers and other road users as drivers will no longer need to interact with their mobile phone when driving.
These practices restrict competition for labour on the platform and reduce driver autonomy. I believe there is a strong case for CMA review and intervention to address the growing imbalance and ensure fairer, more transparent conditions for all parties. Please confirm receipt of this message. I would appreciate any information you can provide about whether this issue is currently under review or whether the CMA intends to examine this area.
Should you need any further details, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
Kevin Heath
