Your Delivery App Deactivated the Account: Save the Policy and the Individual Reasons

If an app deactivates your delivery account, preserve both the policy and the explanation for your particular account. The policy tells you what rules the company says apply. The notice, messages and available account records help explain which rule it says you violated and what facts it relied on. Those are different questions.

The October 29, 2026 published opinion in Uber Technologies v. City of Seattle, opinion at 7–11, concerns a constitutional challenge to Seattle’s app-worker deactivation ordinance. Its worker-notice discussion is useful context, but Seattle’s law must be distinguished from the rules applicable to work in California or another location.

Start with the work and applicable location

Record the platform, the type of work, where it was performed, the deactivation date and the actual account notice. Delivery work and passenger rideshare work can fall under different laws. The opinion expressly describes the Seattle ordinance as excluding rideshare drivers. Do not select a remedy simply because the same app or company name appears in a news story.

Ask counsel to check coverage, the current law, any governing order and the available challenge procedure. The opinion reported a stipulated district-court stay pending the appeals. A reported appellate decision and the present enforceability of a particular obligation need to be read with the actual procedural record. Uber Technologies, opinion at 11.

Save the policy version that governed the event

Keep a dated copy or screenshot of the complete policy, its link, the language supplied and any update notice. If the platform says the policy changed, preserve both versions rather than replacing the old copy. Identify the specific provision cited in the deactivation message.

The Seattle provision reproduced in the opinion requires a written policy specific enough for a worker to understand violations and how to avoid them, in English and the known primary language. It also requires policy access for at least three years after deactivation. Those are terms of the Seattle provision, not a statement that every platform everywhere has an identical obligation. Uber Technologies, appendix at 23.

Build the individual account chronology

Keep the original deactivation message, earlier warnings, relevant delivery records, support exchanges and any response already submitted. Note what the platform actually alleges, the date of the incident and when the worker learned of it. Separate a generic policy link from an individualized reason.

Identify available records that address the allegation: For example, an order completion confirmation or an existing support message about a delay. Preserve material you are entitled to possess and avoid altering the original. Ask what additional records can properly be requested; this checklist does not itself establish a right to obtain every internal platform file.

Compare the stated rule with the stated facts

Suppose a platform cites aggregate customer ratings but the notice does not identify any incident. A useful response asks which policy provision and facts support the action, while preserving the existing record. If the platform instead identifies a particular safety incident, address that actual allegation and the available evidence rather than responding only about average ratings.

The Seattle text distinguishes deactivation based solely on aggregate ratings and provides rules for investigations, consistent application, proportionate penalties and allegations of egregious misconduct. Uber Technologies, appendix at 24–26. Those distinctions help identify questions for review. Whether a particular deactivation violates an applicable law requires coverage and the complete facts.

Keep the challenge deadline and requested remedy clear

Read the actual notice and applicable procedure promptly. Identify whether you are asking for a reason, correction of an inaccurate record, reconsideration, restored access or another remedy. Preserve the submission and receipt. An unanswered support message should not be assumed to extend an external filing deadline.

The companion case analysis explains the constitutional reasoning and partial dissent. For an individual review, bring the policy, account notices and incident chronology. Those materials let counsel assess the worker’s actual claim instead of treating a general disclosure ruling as a decision on one person’s account.