IThe planned petition accuses Uber and Bolt of charging commissions above the 18% ceiling under the Digital Hailing Regulations, 2022, setting fares without driver input, deactivating accounts without clear reasons, and handling driver data without transparency, which the union says breaches the Data Protection Act, 2019. The commission claim points to unlawful revenue extraction. Drivers report losing between 25% and 35% of each trip to fees and hidden deductions. This reduces take-home pay and pushes workers into longer shifts, higher fuel costs, and rising vehicle debt.
Unilateral price control means drivers have no say over how much their labour is worth. Algorithms set fares in real time, often lowering them during high supply periods. This shifts all financial risk onto drivers while shielding the companies from market pressure. Account deactivations happen suddenly and without a fair hearing. Many drivers lose access to the app overnight, removing their only source of income. There is no clear appeal process, no evidence disclosed, and no independent oversight, creating a system of digital discipline without due process.
The data protection claim focuses on how driver information is collected, stored, and shared. GPS tracking, behavioural scoring, and performance monitoring happen continuously. Drivers have little control over how this data is used or who accesses it, exposing them to profiling and commercial exploitation. Otieno added that drivers are labelled as independent contractors but work under full platform control over pricing, penalties, and deactivation, which the union says amounts to disguised employment and digital exploitation.
This argument challenges the core business model of platform companies. It states that when a firm controls pay, discipline, and work access, the relationship is effectively employment, not independent contracting. If upheld, it would force companies to recognise drivers as workers with full labour rights under Kenyan law.
TProgressive Rtech Workers Union said it is working with driver associations and civil society groups to gather evidence and sworn affidavits ahead of filing the case, arguing that the conduct of the platforms violates Articles 41, 46, and 47 of Kenya’s Constitution, which protect fair labour practices, consumer rights, and fair administrative action.
This coordination strengthens the legal case. Multiple driver testimonies create a clear pattern of harm. Civil society involvement adds technical and legal expertise. Constitutional claims raise the case above ordinary labour disputes. They place digital exploitation inside the framework of fundamental rights. Progressive Rtech Workers Union has given the respondents 14 days to resolve the complaints before formally filing the petition. The 14-day deadline serves as legal notice and strategic pressure. It forces companies and regulators to respond or face court scrutiny. It also signals seriousness and readiness to escalate from protest to constitutional litigation.
