Court case 200.295.747/01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2023)

This decision is the result of an appeal (and incidental appeals) filed against a decision from the District Court of Amsterdam (available on GDPRhub). The District Court ordered Uber to provide its drivers with information regarding the their rating by passengers but rejected several other requests for information under Article 15. The different drivers had different requests in appeal. This included information about device data, driver's profile (i.e. an internal note Uber employees use to transfer customer service requests from drivers to other Uber employees), tags (labels in the custumer service system), reports per journey (reports based on passengers' feedback), individual ratings per passenger, upfront pricing (automated system that calculates the price for a ride in advance based on various factors) and batched matching system (automated system which links drivers to passengers). Under Article 15, they also requested information about the recipients, the processing purposes, categories of personal data and existence of automated decision-making referred to in Article 22. Some drivers also requested portability within the meaning of Article 20. Uber argued among other things that the qualification as personal data depended on whether the information in question was or not intended for internal consultation and deliberation. The Court assessed each request to determine if they fell into the scope of Article 15(1). Its assessment can be summarized as follows. For the access to the driver's profile, the Court considered that it contains a representation of the driver's specific request. The driver's profile constituted personal data and therefore falls within the scope of Article 15(1). Concerning access to the tags, the Court stated that it contained information about the relevant driver and therefore also falled within the scope of Article 15(1). Regarding the reports per journey and the individual ratings, they are both based on feedback by pa