Uber and Instacart workers use AI to challenge account closures
Workers on Uber and Instacart are using chatbots to prepare documents and arguments against account deactivations. A Tennessee driver said he regained access after sending an AI-assisted arbitration request; an Instacart worker described an ongoing challenge. The companies say appeals are evaluated on their merits, while labor scholar Robert Bruno distinguishes document help from a persuasive arbitration case.
Artificial Intelligence··Evening
A driver prepares an arbitration request
An Uber driver in Tennessee, in the United States, said he turned to ChatGPT after his account was deactivated without a clear explanation. The resulting letter cited his contract with Uber and sought arbitration, a way to resolve disputes through an arbitrator rather than a court. The driver said ChatGPT proposed including Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s chief executive, among the recipients alongside the arbitration contact. He regained access about a week later, according to his account.[1]
Platforms describe human review of appeals
According to Uber, the substance of a claim determines its assessment: the company considers the facts and data, whatever form a worker’s appeal takes. The grocery-delivery service Instacart said its workers can appeal. Its spokesperson said people review account closures before those decisions become final. Uber support employees also use AI to draft replies to drivers. Both companies have previously declined to specify AI’s role in the initial decision to deactivate an account.[1]
Document help accompanies an ongoing challenge
A delivery-route allegation prompted one Instacart worker to seek help from ChatGPT. He described using it to summarize evidence and calculate earnings lost after deactivation. His challenge remains ongoing. At the US university Illinois Urbana-Champaign, labor relations professor Robert Bruno said document assistance can help workers who cannot pay for legal representation. He stressed that arbitration also requires a persuasive case tailored to the arbitrator.[1]
