Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

Uber and Lyft are ratcheting up the fight with California’s state government over the classification of drivers with a move that would deprive Californians of their ride-hailing services (and halt driver income).

Driving the news: On Wednesday, both companies said that if a court doesn’t overturn or further pause a new ruling forcing them to reclassify California drivers as employees, they’ll suspend their services in the state until November’s election, when voters could potentially exempt them by passing a ballot measure.

Between the lines: Many critics suggested the companies are bluffing, but I’m not so sure. A few reasons...

  1. The logistics aren’t trivial. They’d have to figure out staffing needs and a schedule, hire however many drivers they need, and onboard everyone.
  2. It’s unlikely the companies want to go through all the above, just to reverse course if they win in November.
  3. Depriving customers of these services could get them more support in November. The companies have, in the past, successfully turned customers into their political advocates.
  4. With demand for ride-hailing already being significantly deflated, the additional drop in revenue is perhaps something they’re willing to swallow.
  5. Even if they could make these shifts quickly, it’s unlikely the companies want to give drivers a taste of employee life and risk sabotaging their ballot measure.
  6. Lastly: They’ve done it before. In 2016, when Austin passed new rules requiring driver fingerprinting, Uber and Lyft suspended operations and didn’t return until Texas overrode the rules a year later.

Why it matters: Only Uber and Lyft are party to this lawsuit, but several district and city attorneys — and regulators — are already suing other gig economy companies like Instacart and DoorDash over the same California law.

  • What happens at the California ballot box in November will have ramifications beyond Uber and Lyft’s ride-hailing businesses.
  • It could also affect the future of high-demand services like food and grocery delivery, which have become critical for many Californians while the COVID-19 pandemic continues.
  • (Uber also operates a food delivery business and recently agreed to acquire rival Postmates, which is widely popular in California cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.)

The bottom line: Don’t expect these companies not to pull out all the stops to fight this.

Go deeper

SPACs are largely complying with California's board gender rules

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Nearly all SPACs based in California have at least one woman on their boards, complying with a new state law.

Why it matters: Access to opportunities for wealth generation can help close the gender gap.

Mike Allen, author of AM
4 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Trump sees court fight as virus respite

Spotted at Trump's rally last night at Harrisburg International Airport in Middletown, Pa. Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters

At a rally in Pennsylvania last night, President Trump basked in adulation for Judge Amy Coney Barrett and said: "She should be running for president!"

Why it matters: She might as well be. The Trump campaign is thrilled to be talking about something besides the president's handling of COVID, and is going all-in to amp up the court conversation.

Mike Allen, author of AM
4 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for Barrett confirmation fight

Photo: Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images

Democrats privately fear that going too hard on Judge Amy Coney Barrett in her confirmation hearings could wind up backfiring, if senators are perceived as being nasty to an accomplished woman.

Driving the news: Yesterday afternoon, NBC posted video of Coney Barrett outside her house in South Bend, Ind., loading four of her seven children — two of the seven adopted from Haiti, and another with Down Syndrome — into her Honda Odyssey minivan, then driving them all to her Air Force ride to Washington. "Good luck, Democrats," a Republican tweeted.