California judge rules Uber can keep sending anti-Prop. 22 messages to drivers via its app

• California Uber drivers seeking a temporary restraining order against Uber's aggressive in-app Prop. 22 messaging had that request denied by a court Wednesday.
• Judge Richard Ulmer said the request was months late given the drivers allege the campaign began in August.
• Prop. 22, on which voters will decide yes or no on Tuesday, will allow Uber and competitors to continue classifying workers as contractors rather than employees.
• Instead, the companies will pay into a centralized benefits fund that will provide certain benefits like paid time off to workers across any gig-work app while maintaining their flexibility to work whenever and wherever.

A California court on Wednesday denied an application for a temporary restraining order by the state's Uber drivers, saying they could not establish the alleged "political coercion" by the ride-hailing company.

The drivers had last week sued Uber over in-app messages regarding an upcoming gig worker ballot measure that the drivers say violates a California law protecting their political rights.

The lawsuit had said that Uber was unlawfully pressuring drivers via the app to support the Nov. 3 company-sponsored ballot measure, known as Proposition 22. Uber had rejected those claims.

"The application for a temporary restraining order is denied," Richard Ulmer, judge of Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, said in his order.

The request for "extraordinary injunctive relief" is belated, the judge wrote, adding that the drivers could not establish if anyone was punished by Uber for advocating against Prop 22. "Why plaintiffs waited months to sue and seek injunctive relief is not explained, and such delay casts doubt on their case," Ulmer said.

An Uber representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

David Lower, one of the driver's attorneys, said: "Uber still refuses to assure its drivers it will not retaliate based on how they vote, citing that this would infringe on their right to free speech. This decision seems to say that Uber's 1st amendment right is more important than that of their drivers."

Prop 22 would overwrite California law AB5 intended to force Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies to classify workers as employees, entitling them to benefits including minimum wage, overtime pay, health and unemployment insurance.

Uber and Lyft say such changes would force them to reduce their California driver base by more than 75% and prevent the majority of its drivers from enjoying their current flexibility and income opportunities.

Both companies have also threatened to leave the state if AB5 was enforced.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates have jointly spent close to $200 million to promote the ballot proposal and Uber has included messages in its driver app to promote it.

Last week, a California appeals court unanimously ruled against Uber and Lyft, saying they must reclassify their drivers in the state as employees, with both companies saying they were considering all legal options, including an appeal.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Kim Coghill)