As The Wall Street Journal reports, he labeled the settlement as not fair, accurate or reasonable for drivers. This wasn't a surprise because at an earlier hearing about the settlement the judge seemed to have concerns about it. With good reason. The payments were relatively peanuts. The concessions such as establishment of a procedure before drivers could be terminated and permitting a kind of "tip jar" were small potatoes.
The big issue of having drivers classified as employees with their employer paying expenses such as for gas was ignored in the settlement. Because of that, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan, was viewed as a turncoat. Some contended she went for the settlement to get a big payout for herself. She defended her push to settle by predicting that Uber could undo everything in the litigation in appellate court.
Both parties have been directed to go back to the drawing board and report back to court on September 15. Obviously, the next step for this lawsuit is being watched by the many companies which also use contract workers. A driver win would embolden more of the gig workers to sue to be classified as employees.
Of course, Uber could eventually eliminate this whole legal issue through its driverless car. It is trying that out in Pittsburgh. The current Uber contract drivers or if they became employees wouldn't be needed any more.