In a recent ruling, the California Supreme Court has affirmed the classification of app-based gig workers as independent contractors, solidifying the fate of Proposition 22. This ballot measure, passed in November 2020, has been a subject of contention, with app-based companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart fighting to maintain their reliance on gig workers.

The decision comes as a victory for these app-based companies, as they have vigorously defended their business models that hinge on gig workers providing on-demand rides and delivering goods. Uber, in a blog post, expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, highlighting that this decision safeguards the freedom of drivers and couriers to work on their terms.

Similarly, Lyft echoed this sentiment in its own statement, citing that a significant majority of California drivers surveyed found Proposition 22 beneficial. This ruling effectively puts an end to the back-and-forth legal battle surrounding the classification of gig workers in California.

Prior to this decision, a superior court judge had deemed Proposition 22 unconstitutional and unenforceable, arguing that it limited the legislative authority of the state. However, the Supreme Court ruling now establishes that classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors does not conflict with the California Constitution's provision governing workers' compensation.

Proposition 22 emerged as a response to Assembly Bill 5, a state law that would have required these companies to classify their workers as employees, thereby granting them various benefits such as a minimum wage and workers' compensation. To maintain their asset-light models and keep capital expenditures low, app-based companies heavily invested in advertisements, spending over $200 million collectively to convince both drivers and voters that Proposition 22 was in their best interest.

Under Proposition 22, gig workers are entitled to earn 120% of the state minimum wage for the hours worked, along with an additional 30 cents per engaged mile (though these rates failed to account for inflation). Critics argue that these earnings guarantees fall short, especially considering drivers' work-related expenses like car maintenance, gas, and insurance.

Moreover, the ruling raises concerns about worker protections. While Prop 22 offers healthcare subsidies for drivers meeting certain weekly hour requirements, many drivers find it challenging to qualify for these benefits.

Although opponents of Proposition 22 can petition the court to reconsider its ruling, the current decision firmly establishes the legality of the ballot measure. This ruling could potentially embolden app-based companies to expand their business models further and implement similar measures in other states.

Overall, the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Proposition 22 sets a significant precedent for the classification and treatment of app-based gig workers in California. It remains to be seen how this ruling will shape the future of gig work and labor rights in the state and beyond.