The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion by Uber Technologies, Inc. and Maplebear Inc. for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Seattle from enforcing Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which applies to network companies that provide a platform for customers to hire temporary workers and prohibits unwarranted deactivations of these app-based workers’ accounts.

Section 8.40.050.A of the Ordinance requires (1) that a network company “inform” any app-based worker “in writing” of the company’s deactivation policy and (2) that the deactivation policy be “reasonably related” to the company’s “safe and efficient operations.” Plaintiffs, two network companies that rely on app-based workers for their businesses, alleged that the Ordinance compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, and that it is unconstitutionally vague.

The panel held that the Ordinance does not regulate speech subject to protection under the First Amendment because the Ordinance regulates nonexpressive conduct— the unwarranted deactivation of worker accounts. The fact that the Ordinance, in plaintiffs’ words, necessarily “compel[s] and dictate[s] the content of a written communication” does not transform a law regulating nonexpressive activity into one that infringes speech, and any burden on speech is incidental.

Alternatively, even if the Ordinance is interpreted to regulate speech, that speech would be commercial speech, and the Ordinance’s regulation of it would overcome the applicable lower level of First Amendment scrutiny. Because the Ordinance regulates deactivation standards and requires companies to communicate those standards to their workers, the panel applied the test articulated in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985).

As to the Ordinance’s first requirement that network companies inform app-based workers of their deactivation policies, the panel held that it meets the test drawn from Zauderer, because the provision is reasonably related to Seattle’s goal to keep app-based workers informed and employed while keeping the public safe, does not purport to compel speech on controversial issues, and is not unduly burdensome.

Concerning the Ordinance’s second requirement that the deactivation policies be “reasonably related” to the companies’ “safe and efficient operations”, the panel concluded that provision is not an impermissible regulation of speech, because it regulates speech related to what Seattle has designated as unlawful activity: the unwarranted deactivations of worker accounts.

The panel further held that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague because it provides fair notice to a person of ordinary intelligence as to what grounds for deactivation are reasonably related to safety and efficiency.

Accordingly, the panel held that because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the preliminary injunction.

Dissenting in part, Judge Bennett agreed with the majority that the Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague. However, in his view the Ordinance deactivation policy requirement compels speech and is thus subject to the First Amendment. While he agreed with the majority’s alternative reasoning that the speech at issue is commercial speech subject to intermediate scrutiny, Plaintiffs raised serious questions going to the merits. He would therefore vacate and remand to have the district court redo its analysis on the merits and reexamine the Winter preliminary injunction factors in light of a determination that the Ordinance is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and in light of the current facts.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/04/25-228.pdf