On Thursday, Uber and LYFT were reported to have failed to persuade the California appeals court to overturn the previous court order. The order requires both companies to comply with California’s AB5 labor law, but it could overturn their current business models. The court of appeal noted that there was no legal error in the order of the court of first instance. California’s AB5 law, which came into effect in January, requires casual economy companies, such as online car Hailing platforms, to treat drivers as regular employees rather than independent contractors. < p > < p > currently, Uber and LYFT are also supporting a proposal on a part-time economy in early November, trying to exempt some provisions of the AB5 law. At the same time, Uber drivers filed a lawsuit against Uber on Thursday, claiming that Uber sent messages inside the app calling on drivers to vote for the proposal, in violation of California laws protecting their political rights. < / P > < p > according to the lawsuit, Uber pressed the driver through the application in an illegal way, asking the driver to vote for the 22 proposal which will be voted on November 3 and supported by Uber. < p > < p > Uber denied the accusation and said: “this is an absurd lawsuit, without legal basis, just to attract media attention and ignore the facts.” Uber points out that the vast majority of drivers support proposition 22. < p > < p > proposal No.22 will reorganize AB5 law. The latter forces Uber, LYFT and other odd economy companies to classify workers as regular employees, giving them the right to all kinds of security and benefits, including minimum wage, overtime pay, medical insurance and unemployment insurance. < / P > < p > Uber and LYFT said that such a characterization would result in more than 75% reduction in drivers in California and that most drivers would not be able to access the current job flexibility and income opportunities. The two companies threatened to pull out of California if AB5 was enforced. < / P > < p > under proposal 22, drivers can get some benefits and security, including minimum wage, medical subsidies and accident insurance, but they are still independent contract workers. < / P > < p > Uber, LYFT, doordash, instacart and postmates have jointly spent $184 million to promote the proposal, and Uber has also added promotional messages to the driver side app. These in app messages appeal to drivers to support the proposal, including submitting videos of their support and showing links to the “yes on prop 22” promotional website. David Lowe, a lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said the in app information, as well as Uber’s threat to leave California, made drivers think that if they didn’t do what Uber asked them to do, they could be punished. “Strictly speaking, this lawsuit is not about proposition 22, but about Uber trampling on the political freedom of drivers,” he said < p > < p > William Gould, a professor of employment law at Stanford University, also believes that Uber’s behavior has an obvious attempt to intervene in politics and violates California law. < / P > < p > the lawsuit requires the court to prohibit Uber from publicizing its claims in the app, impose a fine on Uber, and declare Uber’s behavior illegal. The lawsuit is unlikely to be adjudicated before November 3. Google said the proposed media negotiation rules would put its free services in Australia at “risk”