Key Moments
- Uber said it succeeded in its effort to have two related lawsuits worth about £340 million ($453 million) dismissed.
- The claims, brought in 2024 by thousands of London black cab drivers and two former private hire firms, focused on how Uber obtained its private hire operating licence in London.
- Uber denied providing “misleading and inaccurate information” to Transport for London and argued the cases were brought after the six-year limitation period.
Background to the Legal Dispute
LONDON, Oct 19 (Reuters) – Uber stated on Monday that it had prevailed in its attempt to have two connected legal actions, together valued at around £340 million ($453 million), dismissed. The claims were filed by thousands of London black cab drivers alongside two former private hire companies.
The proceedings were initiated in 2024 and centered on the process through which the ride-hailing company obtained a private hire vehicle operating licence in London. The claimants alleged that Uber had provided “misleading and inaccurate information” to Transport for London when seeking that licence.
Uber’s Legal Position
Uber rejected the substance of the allegations and maintained that it had not given “misleading and inaccurate information” to the regulator. In addition, the company contended that the lawsuits were issued after the expiry of the six-year limitation period applicable to such claims.
On that basis, Uber argued that the actions should be struck out. The company said it had now won its bid to have the cases thrown out.
Summary of the Claims
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Type of action | Two linked lawsuits |
| Total claimed value | Around £340 million ($453 million) |
| Claimants | Thousands of London black cab drivers and two former private hire companies |
| Core allegation | Uber gave “misleading and inaccurate information” to Transport for London |
| Key defense arguments | Denial of allegations and assertion that claims were brought after the six-year limitation period |
Court Ruling Status
A copy of the High Court’s ruling was not immediately available.





