Driver alleged lack of prior defense, but court considered that excessive cancellations constitute misuse of the app
The São Paulo Court validated Uber’s decision to permanently ban a partner driver who had disproportionate rates of trip rejection. According to the case file, judged in the district of Mongaguá, in the month before the blockade alone, the driver refused 4,421 calls and canceled another 769 that he had already accepted.
In the lawsuit, the driver asked for reinstatement to the platform, in addition to compensation of R$ 28 thousand for moral damages and loss of profits. The defense claimed that the dismissal occurred summarily, without prior notification or opportunity to contradict, under the generic justification of “excess cancellation fee”. The plaintiff also maintained that the refusals were motivated by security issues, a right guaranteed to partners.
Uber, in turn, presented technical data to contest the version. The company demonstrated that driver behavior violated the terms of use and Community Code, creating a negative experience for users and unbalancing the supply and demand system.
SEE ALSO:
When analyzing the merits, Judge Lígia Dal Colletto Bueno, of the 1st Court of Mongaguá, rejected the plaintiff’s requests. The magistrate pointed out that the platform proved to have sent at least three alerts — via email, in-app messages and push notifications — about the irregular conduct, overturning the thesis of lack of prior notice.
In the ruling, the judge emphasized that, although the driver has the autonomy to accept or refuse rides, the exercise of this right is not absolute. The repeated volume of cancellations was interpreted as an abuse of rights and violation of objective good faith, principles that govern contractual relations.
For the Judiciary, the practice of excessively selecting rides distorts the social function of the contract, as it undermines the reliability of the service for passengers and affects equality with other drivers who follow the rules. The decision reinforces the understanding that contractual freedom in gig economy applications must be aligned with the efficiency and purpose of the service provided.
