The Netherlands' privacy regulator has imposed an €825 million penalty on Uber over automated decisions that could cut drivers off from their income. The case raises a much larger question as algorithms and AI increasingly make decisions affecting people's jobs: when must a human remain responsible?
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT, published 22 August 2026. Read the original RT report HERE
€825 Million Penalty
The Dutch Data Protection Authority, known as the AP, has fined US ride-hailing company Uber €825 million — approximately US$964 million — after finding that its automated decision-making systems violated European privacy rules.
According to the regulator, Uber used fully automated processes between 2018 and 2022 to suspend drivers suspected of fraud or drivers who received low customer ratings.
The central issue was not simply that algorithms were being used.
It was whether decisions carrying serious consequences for people's livelihoods were being made without adequate human review.
AP vice president Monique Verdier described the infringements as serious, saying affected drivers could be summarily suspended and have their incomes cut off.
“A computer is not allowed to make independent decisions that have major consequences for you. A human should have reviewed this first.”
The regulator concluded that Uber's system breached protections contained in the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Why Automated Decisions Matter
The case touches on an increasingly important issue extending well beyond Uber.
Businesses and governments are rapidly adopting automated systems to assess risk, detect fraud, rank applicants, evaluate behaviour and make decisions about individuals.
Those systems can process enormous amounts of information quickly.
But when an algorithm gets something wrong, the consequences can be substantial.
In Uber's case, the people affected were drivers whose ability to earn an income could potentially disappear following an automated decision.
European privacy law places restrictions on decisions based solely on automated processing when those decisions produce significant legal or similarly serious effects for an individual.
The Dutch regulator's position is that meaningful human involvement was required before Uber imposed such consequential sanctions.
Complaint Triggered Investigation
The AP said its investigation followed a complaint by French human rights advocacy organisation LDH.
The Dutch authority handled the case because Uber's European headquarters is located in the Netherlands.
Uber disputes the regulator's conclusions.
The company denied permanently deactivating drivers solely through automated processes and said it would appeal the decision.
That means the €825 million penalty may now become the subject of a lengthy legal challenge.
How Was the Fine Calculated?
The scale of the penalty reflects the enormous revenues generated by multinational technology companies.
European rules allow privacy penalties to be calculated partly against a company's worldwide annual turnover.
Uber generated approximately €44.5 billion — US$52 billion — in global revenue during 2025, according to the RT report.
The €825 million penalty therefore represents roughly 1.85% of Uber's annual global revenue.
Under the applicable European guidelines, penalties can reach as high as 4% of worldwide annual turnover.
For global technology companies, that transforms privacy enforcement from a relatively minor regulatory cost into a potentially significant financial penalty.
Washington and Brussels Clash Over Tech Regulation
The Uber ruling also arrives amid growing political tension between the United States and European Union over regulation of American technology companies.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused European authorities of unfairly targeting US businesses with large regulatory penalties.
According to RT, Trump has threatened economic retaliation, including tariffs, in response.
In July, he said Washington would launch a trade investigation after the EU imposed a roughly $1 billion fine on Google for competition violations.
Trump warned that the dispute could ultimately result in additional tariffs on European imports.
Read RT's related report on Trump's threat against the EU HERE
The result is that what begins as a privacy or competition enforcement action can increasingly become part of a much larger transatlantic trade dispute.
The Bigger Question: Who Makes the Decision?
The significance of the Uber case extends beyond one ride-hailing company.
Automated decision-making is becoming embedded throughout modern economies.
Banks use algorithms when assessing transactions and credit risk.
Insurance companies use automated systems to calculate risk.
Employers increasingly use software to screen applicants.
Online platforms use algorithms to moderate users and content.
Government agencies are also increasingly turning to automated systems and artificial intelligence to process information and assist decision-making.
The fundamental question is therefore becoming increasingly important:
When an automated system makes a decision that substantially affects someone's life, who is accountable for that decision?
The Dutch regulator's answer in the Uber case is clear.
For decisions carrying major consequences, simply leaving the decision to a computer is not enough.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Yes — because the underlying issue is already relevant here.
New Zealand businesses and government agencies are increasingly adopting automated decision-making and artificial intelligence.
The Uber ruling therefore provides an important international precedent for how regulators may approach systems capable of affecting employment, income, access to services or other significant aspects of people's lives.
New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 is not identical to Europe's GDPR, and the Dutch decision does not automatically apply here.
But the principle behind the case is highly relevant.
As automated systems become more powerful, New Zealand will increasingly need to determine when an algorithm can assist a decision and when meaningful human review must remain mandatory.
There is also a practical question for workers operating through international digital platforms.
If a New Zealand contractor or worker is suspended by an automated fraud or rating system, what right do they have to know why the decision was made, challenge the underlying information and have the decision reviewed by a person?
Those questions will become increasingly difficult to avoid.
Current Relevance
Uber says it will appeal the €825 million penalty.
The immediate outcome to watch is therefore whether the Dutch regulator's decision survives the appeals process.
If it does, the ruling could strengthen European restrictions on fully automated decisions affecting workers and platform participants.
Long-Term Relevance
The larger significance lies in the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and algorithmic management.
The issue is no longer simply whether AI and automated systems can make decisions.
Increasingly, the question will be which decisions society is prepared to allow them to make without human intervention.
Employment, banking, insurance, healthcare, government services and law enforcement are all areas where automated systems could substantially affect individuals.
That makes transparency, appeal rights and human accountability increasingly important safeguards.
Historic Relevance
The internet transformed how businesses communicated with customers.
The platform economy transformed how millions of people work.
Artificial intelligence may now transform who — or what — actually makes decisions about them.
The Dutch Uber ruling could eventually be remembered as part of the early legal boundary-setting around that transition.
The technology may be automated.
Accountability cannot be.
Source
RT — 22 August 2026
Original RT report HERE
Source image: FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / Mateusz Wlodarczyk/NurPhoto.
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.