{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021036814425244178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006010518407212622, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An attempt to protect against the electronic technology of employee status

The Employment Tribunals and England and Wales Court of Appeal accepted in the case [2018]EWCA Civ 2748 that any Uber driver who has the App switched on the territory in which he/she is authorized to work , and is able and willing to accept assignments is working for Uber under a worker contract. The UK courts had disregarded some provisions
of the Uber’s Driver Agreement. They had been entitled to do so because the relevant provisions of the Driver Agreement did not reflect the reality of the bargain made between the parties. The fact that Uber interviews and recruit drivers, controls the key information, requires drivers to accept trips, sets the route, fixes the fare, imposes numerous conditions on drivers, determines wages, amends the driver’s terms unilaterally, and handles complaints by passengers makes him a transportation or passenger carrier, not an information and electronic technology provider. Therefore the UK courts solved the central issue of for whom (Uber), under contract with whom (Uber), drivers perform their services. Uber is a modern
business phenomenon. Regardless of its special position in business Uber is oblige to follow the rules according to which the work is not a commodity neither online technology device.

