Brazilian Court Suspends Uber Driver Program, Gives Company 48 Hours to Comply
Key Facts
A Brazilian labor court ordered the suspension of Uber’s “Passe para Motoristas” program, responding to a request by the Public Labor Ministry, according to the ministry’s Bahia branch. The temporary order applies nationwide and gives the company 48 hours from notification to halt new subscriptions, renewals, activations and expansion of the program. Uber must also remove messages suggesting guaranteed earnings. The move lies at the heart of a dispute over a model that links the service fee to a subscription rather than calculating it per trip. The Labor Ministry said its request sought a temporary halt to the program, while the legality of the model remains for the courts to decide.
According to the ministry, the suspension does not cover the cancellation of permits that drivers have paid for in full; holders of active permits retain zero service fees until the contracted term expires. Drivers with outstanding debts will not face new charges because the suspended program remains in place. The order therefore halts new obligations while leaving some terms of existing permits in effect until their expiry. Uber’s terms say the subscription is mandatory in cities where it is available and is activated automatically when a driver accepts a trip without an active permit. After the trip is completed, the cost is deducted from the driver’s wallet.
The program offers more than one type of permit. A time-based permit allows unlimited trips without additional service fees for 24 or 72 hours, according to Uber’s information page published on 5 August 2026. An earnings permit expires when a specified cap is reached, according to the same page. Uber says the permit’s cost is deducted after the first passenger trip, or from proceeds from subsequent trips if there is not enough balance. Its terms state that buying or activating a permit does not guarantee a minimum number or a steady flow of trips, which may vary with seasonality, time, traffic, weather and other factors.
The Labor Ministry says the program could affect competition among ride-hailing apps because a driver may focus activity on Uber to avoid losing the subscription’s value by working through another app. The ministry described this as an incentive to concentrate activity on the platform during the permit period. It says the model shifts to drivers the risk of not recovering the subscription cost if they do not get enough trips. Uber, meanwhile, said the program is still in a testing phase and was designed as a commercial alternative to the model of charging service fees on every trip. The company described the court order as creating legal uncertainty and a competitive imbalance.
Uber said in a statement carried by the Labor Ministry that it had not yet received notice of the decision and would take the necessary legal steps to challenge it if its substance is confirmed. This means the 48-hour compliance period begins with formal notification, not merely the issuance of the order. The company said on a page published on 16 October 2026 that the program is available to motorcycle drivers in Brazil and car drivers in selected cities. The page presented the permit as an alternative to variable service fees for each trip, which the company said the new model was intended to replace. The practical scope of the program’s application remains tied to what the company is told and what the court decides in subsequent proceedings.
Uber shares closed at $70.68 in the 11 November 2026 session. The price came on the day the temporary order was issued, but the available data do not establish the session’s high and low prices. The decision puts a commercial model under testing through judicial review in a market where the company says the program operates for specific groups and in selected areas. Its effects could also reach new subscriptions, renewals and expansions nationwide, in line with the scope of the order announced by the Labor Ministry. The next step centers on notifying Uber and its position on compliance and an appeal, while the dispute over the legality of the fees and the program’s terms continues.