It happened at 11:00 PM on a Monday night in Adelaide. Most people are winding down, but for Mohammad Shareef Hotak, the shift was just getting started. He’d been driving for Uber for over four years—6,000 trips under his belt and a near-perfect 4.99 rating. Then, three passengers got into his car and everything went sideways.
Basically, the riders started using drugs in the back seat. Hotak did what any responsible driver would do: he told them to stop and asked them to get out. Instead of leaving quietly, they allegedly assaulted him. Hotak called the police immediately. He did the right thing. But just a few days later, Uber pulled the rug out from under him.
The riders had filed a retaliatory report, claiming Hotak threatened them with a baseball bat. Without a real investigation, Uber deactivated his account. No income. No way to support his mother and brother. Total silence from the app.
The Landmark Ruling: Mohammad Shareef Hotak vs. Uber
This wasn't just another driver getting kicked off an app. This case became the first major test of Australia’s new "Closing Loopholes" laws. Before these rules kicked in, gig workers were pretty much at the mercy of the algorithm. If an app decided you were done, you were done.
Hotak didn't just take it. Backed by the Transport Workers’ Union (TWU), he took the fight to the Fair Work Commission (FWC).
Interestingly, while the case was moving through the legal system, Uber actually reactivated him. They probably saw the writing on the wall. They argued that because he was back online, the case should be dropped. The Commission basically said "nice try" and kept going.
Why this case changed the gig economy
The FWC didn't just look at whether he could drive again. They looked at the two months of lost wages. In September 2025, the Full Bench of the FWC ruled the deactivation was "plainly unfair."
They ordered Uber to pay back the money he lost during those seven weeks. This is huge. It’s the first time a gig platform has been forced to pay "back pay" to a deactivated worker. It sets a precedent that "employee-like" workers have rights that big tech can't just ignore.
The Reality of Unfair Deactivation in 2026
If you’re a driver, you know the fear. One bad review or one lying passenger and your livelihood vanishes. The Mohammad Shareef Hotak case highlights a massive flaw in the "deactivate first, ask questions later" policy.
Honestly, it’s a numbers game for these platforms. They manage millions of users, so they rely on automated systems to flag "safety risks." But as we saw with Hotak, those systems are easily weaponized by passengers who want to avoid a cleaning fee or get revenge for being kicked out of a car.
Common triggers for unfair deactivation
- Retaliatory reporting: Passengers making up wild stories (like the baseball bat) after a driver enforces car rules.
- Facial recognition glitches: We've seen cases where drivers are locked out because the AI doesn't recognize their face after they grow a beard or change their glasses.
- Background check delays: Sometimes a routine check hits a snag in a government database, and the app defaults to a permanent ban.
The FWC's decision makes it clear: vague, untested allegations aren't a "valid reason" for deactivation anymore. Platforms now have to meet a standard similar to what traditional employers face.
How to Protect Your Livelihood
You can't stop a passenger from lying, but you can change the odds. Hotak’s victory wasn't just luck—it was about documentation and representation.
Get a Dashcam. Now. I can't stress this enough. If Hotak had high-quality interior footage of those riders using drugs, the "baseball bat" lie would have been debunked in five minutes. A dual-lens camera that records both the road and the cabin is the only real insurance a driver has.
💡 You might also like: Graph of the Stock Market Today: Why the Chart Looks This Way Right Now
Join a Union or Driver Association
The TWU was the heavy hitter in Hotak’s corner. When you're up against a multi-billion dollar company, having a legal team that knows the new Fair Work Act is the difference between winning and disappearing.
Keep a "Paper" Trail
If something happens—an assault, a weird vibe, a drug incident—don't just report it to Uber. Call the police. Get a reference number. Screenshot your trip details immediately. If the app deactivates you, you might lose access to that data instantly.
What's Next for Gig Workers?
The Mohammad Shareef Hotak case is a warning shot to the entire industry. It’s no longer enough for platforms to say, "You're an independent contractor, so we don't owe you anything."
In 2026, the definition of "fairness" in the gig economy is being rewritten by cases like this one. If you’re facing a deactivation that feels wrong, the Hotak ruling proves that you don't have to just accept it. The law has finally started to catch up with the technology.
Actionable Steps if You Are Deactivated:
- Don't wait: File an internal appeal immediately through the "Review Center" in the app, but don't expect them to be your friend.
- Gather Evidence: Collect any dashcam footage, police reports, or witness statements you have.
- Seek Legal Advice: If you're in Australia, look into section 536LU of the Fair Work Act. If you're elsewhere, find a local drivers' union that understands recent gig economy legislation.
- Stay Persistent: Like Hotak, you might have to push through multiple "no" responses before getting to a human who can actually make a decision.
The era of the "silent deactivation" is ending. The Hotak case isn't just a win for one man in Adelaide; it's the blueprint for how drivers can fight back and win their dignity—and their paychecks—back.