A Massachusetts court rules that a proposed ballot measure, backed by Uber and Lyft, to classify gig drivers as independent contractors, violates state law
from employer obligations to taking care of passengers when accidents happen"https://www.nytimes.com/ ... @massnotforsale : “The ruling effectively ended a $17.8 million campaign by the gig companies to support the initiative.” Money doesn't guarantee a win, and weakened worker protections are not inevitable. When we fight, we win. Massachusetts is NOT for sale! https://www.nytimes.com/... @californialabor : NEWS: NO PROP 22 in Mass! Court throws out Prop 22-style initiative in Massachusetts, calling it unconstitutional. Companies like @uber and @lyft rely on spending hundreds of millions of $$ to buy laws for themselves, but we say NO! https://www.nytimes.com/... Kellen Browning / @kellen_browning : Big news from Massachusetts this morning: A state court has *thrown out* a proposed ballot measure that would classify gig drivers as independent contractors. It was a redux of California's Prop 22, supported by Uber and Lyft. Now, it's off the ballot. https://www.nytimes.com/... Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher / @lorenasgonzalez : 👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽 Never stop fighting for workers! https://twitter.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
This ruling closes a second front in Massachusetts' fight over driver classification. The state first sued Uber and Lyft for misclassifying drivers in 2020, and when the companies tried to litigate their way out, a court rejected their dismissal request in 2021 — so they turned to the ballot box instead, funding a $17.8 million Prop 22-style initiative.
That route has now been blocked too: the court ruled the proposed measure violates state law and removed it from the ballot. The outcome contrasts sharply with California, where the state's Supreme Court ultimately upheld Prop 22 and preserved independent-contractor classification for Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash drivers.
First-order effects
- Uber and Lyft lose their cheapest path to keeping Massachusetts drivers off their payrolls — the initiative that would have let voters settle the question is gone, and the underlying misclassification lawsuit remains live.
- Driver-side organizers and labor groups backing employee classification gain immediate leverage, having defeated a well-funded corporate campaign without needing to win an election.
Second-order effects
- With the ballot route closed, Uber and Lyft must either settle with Massachusetts, absorb employer obligations if they lose in court, or restructure driver terms statewide — a materially more expensive negotiation than a one-time campaign spend.
- The divergence from California's upheld Prop 22 forces the companies to run two different driver-classification regimes in two of their largest markets, raising compliance costs and complicating national pricing and benefits design.
Third-order effects
- If courts keep vetting ballot measures this way, buying classification through initiatives stops being a reliable playbook, and gig-work status gets decided state by state through litigation and labor law rather than campaign spending.
- A fragmented classification map would push the industry toward lobbying for federal or multi-state standards — but until then, worker advocates have a template for blocking corporate-funded measures at the procedural stage.
The trend: Gig-driver classification is being settled jurisdiction by jurisdiction, with courts increasingly acting as gatekeepers against corporate-funded ballot fixes.