Apparent Agency Liability and Gig Economy Defendants: Critical Facts and Themes; Discovery Strategy; Dean v. Uber

This CLE webinar will discuss holding "gig economy defendants" liable by establishing apparent agency of third-party individuals and businesses contracted to provide the services being marketed by these companies. The program will address the difference between breaking the independent contractor defense by showing the principal's extensive control over a third party's operation versus showing that the consumer/customer reasonably believed and understood that the third party was acting on behalf of the principal. The panel will also consider the impact of Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc. (Feb. 5, 2026).

Many businesses, particularly those involved in last-mile delivery and those that promote themselves as technology intermediaries or electronic bulletin boards that connect customers with service providers such as rideshare companies, food delivery, medical delivery, e-transportation, or vacation rental platforms, view their third-party service providers as independent contractors. If an injury occurs, the "gig defendant" may dispute liability on the grounds it is not legally responsible for the actions of its independent contractors. 

Defendants need to be aware of the limitations of this approach. Plaintiffs have had some success in establishing the contractor's agency and liability by demonstrating that the principal, for example Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, or UPS, actually had extensive control over how the third-party performed its tasks, sometimes referred to as the "right to control" standard. These cases often require extensive discovery to show that the principal controlled schedules, routes, what vehicles were to be used, insisted on or engaged in safety inspections, and so forth. In highly regulated industries, certain duties may be non-delegable. 

More recently, in Dean v. Uber Technologies Inc., the plaintiff persuaded a jury that a gig economy principal was liable for injuries by its independent contractor under the theory of apparent agency. According to commentators, this jury found apparent agency based on evidence of how consumers experienced the service in question, brand marketing, and the principal's control of the transaction. This approach could create marketing challenges and new risks for defendants. 

Listen as our experienced panelists offer insights into these two types of agency theories, the types of evidence needed to prove either, and practical guidance for analyzing and navigating this novel approach to liability for intermediary businesses.